Journal Pre-proof

Construction and demolition waste management contributing factors coupled with

reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies for effective waste management: A review

Kamyar Kabirifar, Mohammad Mojtahedi, Changxin Wang, Vivian W.Y. Tam

PII: S0959-6526(20)31312-3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121265
Reference: JCLP 121265

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 11 December 2019

Revised Date: 16 March 2020
Accepted Date: 20 March 2020

Please cite this article as: Kabirifar K, Mojtahedi M, Wang C, Tam VWY, Construction and demolition
waste management contributing factors coupled with reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies for effective
waste management: A review, Journal of Cleaner Production (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2020.121265.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 1 Construction and demolition waste management contributing factors coupled
2 with reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies for effective waste management: A
3 Review
*
4 Kamyar Kabirifar a , Mohammad Mojtahedi b, Changxin Wang c, Vivian W. Y. Tam d
5 a,b,c Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

6 d School of Built Environment, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia

7
8 a Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales; Sydney, Australia; kamyar.kabirifar@unsw.edu.au
9 b Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; m.mojtahedi@unsw.edu.au
10 c Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; cynthia.wang@unsw.edu.au
11 d Department of Built Environment, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia; v.tam@westernsydney.edu.au

12 * Correspondence: kamyar.kabirifar@student.unsw.edu.au; Tel.: +61-478 195 323

13 Abstract:

14 Construction and demolition waste (C&DW) as a direct consequence of rapid urbanization is increasing around
15 the world. C&DW generation has been identified as one of the major issues in the construction industry due to its
16 direct impacts on the environment as well as the efficiency of construction industry. It is estimated that an overall
17 of 35% of C&DW is landfilled globally, therefore, effective C&DW management is crucial in order to minimize
18 detrimental impacts of C&DW for the environment. As the industry cannot continue to practice if the resources
19 on which it depends are depleted, C&DW management needs to be implemented in an effective way. Despite
20 considering many well-developed strategies for C&DW management, the outputs of the implementation of these
21 strategies is far from optimum. The main reason of this inefficiency is due to inadequate understanding of
22 principal factors, which play a vital role in C&DW management. Therefore, the aim of this research is to critically
23 scrutinize the concept of C&DW and its managerial issues in a systematic way to come up with the effective
24 C&DW management. In order to achieve this aim, and based on a systematic review of 97 research papers
25 relevant to effective C&DW management, this research considers two main categories as fundamental factors
26 affecting C&DW management namely, C&DW management hierarchy including reduce, reuse, and recycle
27 strategies, and effective C&DW management contributing factors, including C&DW management from
28 sustainability perspective, C&DW stakeholders’ attitudes, C&DW project life cycle, and C&DW management
29 tools. Subsequently, these factors are discussed in detail and findings are scrutinized in order to clarify current
30 and future practices of C&DW management from both academic and practical perspectives.

31 Keywords: Construction and Demolition Waste Management, Construction and Demolition Waste Management
32 Hierarchy, Effective Construction and Demolition Waste Management Contributing Factors, Effective
33 Construction and Demolition Waste Management

34 1. Introduction
35 One of the most widespread definitions of construction and demolition waste (C&DW) provided by
36 (Tchobanoglous et al., 1977) emphasizes on demolition wastes as wastes arise from razed structures,
37 however, regarding construction waste, it is defined as wastes from construction, renovation, and
38 repairing of individual premises, commercial buildings, and other types of buildings. Skoyles and
39 Skoyles (1987) defined C&DW as a material or a by-product of the construction process, which is
40 generated due to non-conformity with the specifications, non-use or excessive utilization of resources,
41 and damage of the resources and infrastructure and this material should be evacuated from
42 construction site to another place or it can be utilized on construction site but rather than the initial
43 aim of the project. It is difficult to estimate the quantities of produced C&DW and they are various in
44 composition, however, may include concrete, bricks, dirt, stones, plaster, lumber, shingles, plumbing,
45 and electrical parts (Gavilan and Bernold, 1994). Another definition of C&DW is introduced by (Shen
46 et al., 2004) as “Debris generated in buildings, earth, rubble, steel, concrete, wood, and mixed

1
47 materials in construction sites, generating from different activities in construction sites encompassing
48 excavation of lands, construction of buildings and structures, clearance of site, activities pertaining to
49 demolition, roadwork, and renovation of buildings”. In addition, (Poon and Chan, 2007) described
50 C&DW as a compound of inert and non-inert materials. For instance, soil and slurry are classified as
51 soft inert materials, while concrete particles and rocks are classified as hard inert materials.
52 Meanwhile, inert materials include materials such as packaging waste, plastics, and timber. C&DW is
53 also defined as solid waste, which is produced within construction activities, particularly, the waste
54 that stems from the processes of construction, renovation and demolition (Yuan and Shen, 2011, Park
55 and Tucker, 2017). In general, C&DW is explained as a combination of various materials, containing
56 non-inert waste, inert waste, non-hazardous waste and hazardous waste. C&DW is also referred to
57 the materials that might inadvertently be engendered by natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes,
58 earthquakes, and tsunamis (Menegaki and Damigos, 2018). Furthermore, some other researchers
59 define or classify C&DW in a similar way with regard to the types of materials including in each
60 category, the potential for reusing, recovering and recycling of materials, or within a localized context
61 (del Río Merino et al., 2010, Coelho and de Brito, 2011, Yuan and Shen, 2011, Mercante et al., 2012,
62 Saez et al., 2013, Marzouk and Azab, 2014, Butera et al., 2015, Karunasena and Amaratunga, 2016, Esa
63 et al., 2017a, Ghafourian et al., 2017, Ulubeyli et al., 2017, Won and Cheng, 2017, Yuan, 2017, Chen et
64 al., 2018, Gálvez-Martos et al., 2018, Yazdanbakhsh, 2018, Menegaki and Damigos, 2018, Bandeira et
65 al., 2019, Blaisi, 2019, Jin et al., 2019, Wu et al., 2019b, Wu et al., 2019c). Meanwhile, EPA America
66 (Environmental Protection Agency) defines C&DW as a classification of waste which is autonomous
67 from municipal solid waste. Bases on this definition, C&DW include materials, such as steel, concrete,
68 asphalt, asphalt shingles, wood, drywall and plaster, brick and clay tile (Prairie Village, 1998). These
69 types of materials are applied in buildings, roads and bridges, and other infrastructures (Akhtar and
70 Sarmah, 2018). EPA Australia (Environment Protection Authority) describes C&DW as; solid waste
71 caused by C&D works, containing waste from building and demolition activities, asphalt and
72 excavated material (Pickin et al., 2018).
73 Based on the most recent available data, it is estimated that 333 million tonnes of C&DW (excluding
74 soils) was generated in European Union in 2014 (Menegaki and Damigos, 2018).In this context,
75 C&DW is categorized into nine groups including ferric metals, non-ferric metals, mixed ferric and
76 non-ferric metals, wood, plastic, glass, polychlorinated biphenyl waste, mineral wastes containing
77 asbestos, and finally, waste from C&D from all activities. In addition, Germany with 85 million
78 tonnes, France with 65 million tonnes, and the United Kingdom with 58 million tonnes were the top
79 three C&DW generators in European Union (Menegaki and Damigos, 2018).
80 China generated 1130 million tonnes of C&DW in 2014 and is ranked as the first C&DW generator
81 worldwide, while, 534 million tonnes of C&DW was engendered in the United States in 2014
82 including building activities, construction of road and bridges and other construction activities, from
83 which 28.9 million tonnes through construction and 505.1 million tonnes through demolition activities
84 encompassing concrete, steel, wood products, brick and clay tile, drywall and plasters, and asphalt
85 shingles (Menegaki and Damigos, 2018). Meanwhile, in 2016-2017 Australia generated more than 20
86 million tonnes of C&DW approximately (Pickin et al., 2018). Table1 presents the top nine C&DW
87 generators worldwide.
88 Table1: C&DW generation worldwide (Menegaki and Damigos, 2018, The World Bank, 2018a, The World Bank,
89 2018b, The World Bank, 2018c)
C&DW generation Population 2018 GDP 2018 (billion
ID Country Area (km2)
(million tonnes) (million) USD)

2
 1 Hong Kong 20 1,050 7.4 363
2 Australia 20.4 7,692,020 25 1,434
3 Netherlands 22 33,690 17.2 914
4 Italy 39 294,140 60.5 2,084
5 United Kingdom 58 241,930 66.5 2,855
6 France 65 547,557 67 2,778
7 Germany 86 349,360 83 3,948
8 United States 534 9,147,420 327 20,544
9 China 1130 9,388,210 1393 13,608

90 From the above-mentioned statistics, it is concluded that there is a direct relationship between
91 population size, and economy-related activities with the quantity of generated C&DW, as the top
92 C&DW generators worldwide are among the big economies. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that
93 evidence indicates that the construction industry generates about 44% of landfill waste in the United
94 Kingdom, 44% in Australia, 40% in Brazil, 29% in the United States, 27% in Canada and 25% in Hong
95 Kong (Ann et al., 2013, Yeheyis et al., 2013, Ajayi et al., 2016, Menegaki and Damigos, 2018).
96 Generally, it is estimated that the overall global average of C&DW is about 35% (Solís-Guzmán et al.,
97 2009, Ajayi et al., 2016), which is alarming when considering both the quantities of C&DW and
98 detrimental impacts of C&DW on the environment.
99 Managing C&DW in an effective way is a critical component in order to save our environment,
100 natural resources, economy, society, etc. Many researches have been carried out in the area of C&DW
101 management by focusing on C&DW management hierarchy including reduce, reuse, and recycle
102 strategies, which is known as a fundamental principal of C&DW management and by considering one
103 or a combination of these factors (Huang et al., 2018), however, this seems not to be adequate in order
104 to effectively manage C&DW (Ajayi et al., 2015, Esa et al., 2017a). Moreover, several other researches
105 have focused on C&DW management influencing factors, however, most of these studies (Li and
106 Yang, 2014, Wang et al., 2014, Ramlee et al., 2016, Akinade et al., 2017, Banihashemi et al., 2017, Chen
107 and Lu, 2017, Kalutara et al., 2017, Nikmehr et al., 2017, Udawatta et al., 2018, Yuan et al., 2018) lack of
108 organized and systematic classification, especially with regard to effective C&DW management.
109 Despite these previous researches in the area of C&DW management, less attention has been paid to
110 the identification and categorization of factors contributing to the effective C&DW management in a
111 systematic way. It is impossible to effectively manage C&DW without considering C&DW
112 management hierarchy and C&DW management contributing factors, because they both have same
113 directions, and overlaps regarding C&DW management and should be incorporated. Therefore, this
114 research aims at critically discuss the concept of effective C&DW and its contributing factors from
115 managerial perspective. The following research questions need to be addressed in the context of
116 C&DW management hierarchical strategies and C&DW management contributing factors.
117 1. What are the factors that affecting C&DW management? and;
118 2. What is the proposed model for effective C&DW management?
119 This review has an impressive value from both academic and practical point of view. Firstly, because
120 by the identification and categorization of effective C&DW management factors, a clear picture of
121 current and future status and practices in the domain of C&DW management research is drawn,
122 which helps academics to direct their future research on C&DW management by considering these
123 factors. Next, organizations engaged in C&DW management, can benefit from this research by
124 considering factors that affect C&DW management efficiency within their organizations in order to
125 enhance their level of performance.

3
126 2. Construction and Demolition Waste Management Literature Taxonomy
127 Based on the aim of this research, C&DW management literature taxonomy should be formed in
128 order to answer two main questions, including the factors that affect C&DW management and the
129 proposed model for effective C&DW management. In order to answer these questions, this research
130 initially considers C&DW definitions and generation, then, the research areas of previous studies in
131 C&DW management are discussed, which give a clear picture about the domain of previous research
132 practices in the area of C&DW management. In this step and based on the research gap of this study,
133 research questions and research aim of this study are discussed in detail. In the next step, research
134 methodology is described and subsequently, in the following steps of this research, discussions and
135 conclusions will be conducted. In order to effectively manage C&DW, incorporation of effective
136 C&DW management contributing factors and C&DW management hierarchy is essential. Figure1
137 represents the proposed C&DW literature taxonomy.
138

139
140 Figure1: Proposed Taxonomy for construction and demolition waste management literature review

141 3. Construction and Demolition Waste Management Research Background

142 The C&DW issues during the past decades have gained growing awareness from industry and
143 researchers around the world. Despite lots of efforts in the past couple of years, it is evaluated that the
144 construction industry is still in its early phases and yet to mature to effectively help alleviate the
145 environmental burden (Li, 2011). The strategy to minimize the C&DW generation in an effective and
146 efficient manner is a dilemma encountered with many countries around the world. Significant
147 research efforts have been dedicated to C&DW minimization since 1980s, in order to reduce
148 detrimental effects of C&DW of building structures (Yuan, 2012).

4
149 In order to have a clear understanding of previously conducted researches in the area of C&DW
150 management and research boundaries of C&DW, considering the C&DW management frameworks
151 developed by researchers is necessary. For instance, (Couto and Couto, 2010) developed a framework
152 to improve C&DW management in Portugal considering C&DW project life cycle and project
153 stakeholders. Another framework was developed by (Lu and Yuan, 2011), in which, research
154 boundaries for C&DW management were described. This framework covers amounts, origins, and
155 impacts of C&DW management, C&DW reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies, C&DW tools, humans’
156 role, performance and regulatory environment. In addition, C&DW management with regard to
157 project life cycle and stakeholders have also been addressed in this framework. Similarly, (Yuan and
158 Shen, 2011), considered a framework for C&DW management hierarchy including reduction, reuse,
159 recycling and disposal. Moreover, (Yeheyis et al., 2013) developed a framework for C&DW life cycle
160 assessment in Canada, utilized C&DW project life cycle and stakeholders as well as support decision
161 tools. Similarly, (Calvo et al., 2014) developed a framework for C&DW management in Spain, and
162 (Karunasena and Amaratunga, 2016) considered a framework for post disaster C&DW management
163 in Sri Lanka, and (Huang et al., 2018) developed a framework for C&DW management in China
164 through 3Rs principle. Furthermore, (Gálvez-Martos et al., 2018) developed a framework for
165 environmental management practices of C&DW in Europe. In the meantime, in order to effectively
166 manage C&DW, (Wu et al., 2019c) conducted a research to assess C&DW management effectiveness
167 based on three different levels namely, national level, city level and project level. For instance, in the
168 national level, the effectiveness of methods in the construction industry of Hong Kong was
169 investigated. In that study, gained benefits, critical difficulties and important measures to encourage
170 C&DW management were identified (Tam, 2008). In another study, a framework was proposed by
171 (Yuan, 2013b) in order to assess C&DW effectiveness. In a research carried out by (Saez et al., 2013),
172 effectiveness of best practices of C&DW management was evaluated, including industrialised system
173 utilization, contract issues with suppliers managing C&DW, and containers distribution in the
174 working area. Another study conducted by (Ajayi et al., 2015) at the industry level, explored
175 hampering factors for effective C&DW management regarding developing plans for reducing waste
176 in the construction industry. Other studies have focused on performance measurement of C&DW
177 management (Reza et al., 2011, Mercante et al., 2012, Wu et al., 2015, Butera et al., 2015, Kucukvar et
178 al., 2016, Marrero et al., 2017, Vitale et al., 2017, Lu et al., 2017, Neto et al., 2017, Yuan et al., 2018,
179 Borghi et al., 2018, Wu et al., 2019a), however, in the domain of effectively manage C&DW,
180 considering effective contributing factors and their systematic classification and categorization is
181 crucial, which has not fully been carried out in the previous researches.
182 Some scholars have considered C&DW management from hierarchical perspective including C&DW
183 reduction strategy, C&DW reuse strategy, and C&DW recycle strategy. For instance, (Park and
184 Tucker, 2017) considered waste reduction strategy as the most efficient waste minimization strategy.
185 However, some C&DW are inevitably produced, therefore, C&DW reuse and recycling as pragmatic
186 managerial strategies should be implemented in order to reduce waste going to landfills (Yuan and
187 Shen, 2011). C&DW reuse is called to the process of reusing same construction material more than
188 once even in different roles and if this generated waste cannot be reused, conversion of these
189 materials to new materials through recycling should be performed. The merits of C&DW
190 management are numerous including preserving the environment from pollution and degradation,
191 economic advantages, less energy consumption, less emissions, etc (Guerrero et al., 2013, Park and
192 Tucker, 2017, Huang et al., 2018). Some other researchers have studied other contributing factors to
193 C&DW management. For instance, identifying the construction activities through which, reusable

5
194 construction materials can be accommodated (del Río Merino et al., 2010), having waste target for all
195 associated trades (Marinelli et al., 2014), having recycling targets for each construction project
196 (Oyedele et al., 2013), utilization of facilities with the capacity of safe storage of materials and on-site
197 environmental performance monitoring and control (Dainty and Brooke, 2004, Ekanayake and Ofori,
198 2004), prevention of over ordering of materials and removing remaining soil in reusable materials
199 (Begum et al., 2007, Begum et al., 2009), prevention of double handling of materials by proper logistic
200 management, promoting reuse of materials, utilization of standard materials in construction, and
201 having separate bins prepared for waste collection for all sub-contractors (Cha et al., 2009, Al-Hajj and
202 Hamani, 2011, Kabirifar and Mojtahedi, 2019), utilization of recovered materials (Domingo et al.,
203 2009), periodic inspections on the use of C&DW containers (Saez et al., 2013), allocation of adequate
204 space for waste sorting (Lu and Yuan, 2011, Wang et al., 2014), setting up temporary bins and
205 preventing from mixture of soils (Jingkuang and Yousong, 2011), enough site access for delivery of
206 materials and personnel movement (Nagapan et al., 2012), specific places for cutting and storage of
207 material (Tam, 2008), reuse material scraps (Faniran and Caban, 1998), waste sorting, reusing and
208 recycling (Hassan et al., 2012), and making sub-contractors responsible for waste disposal (Domingo
209 et al., 2009).
210 Although the afore-mentioned factors for C&DW management from both hierarchical perspective
211 and influencing factors, have addressed some critical topics related to C&DW management, there is a
212 lack of systematic identification and categorization of these factors in previous researches. Therefore,
213 this study proposes an integrated framework including effective contributing factors to C&DW
214 management and C&DW management hierarchical strategies, in order to effectively manage C&DW
215 concerning all aspects of C&DW management, which is illustrated in Figure2.
216

217
218 Figure2: Relationship between effective C&DW management contributing factors, C&DW management

219 hierarchical strategies and effective C&DW management.

6
220 In order to achieve the aim of this research which is to critically scrutinize the concept of C&DW and
221 its managerial issues to come up with the effective C&DW management approaches, first, C&DW
222 management hierarchy and its influencing factors should be discussed. Next, effective C&DW
223 contributing factors should be identified and categorized and in order to effectively manage C&DW,
224 these factors should be incorporated with contributing factors to C&DW management hierarchy.

225 4. Literature Review Methodology

226 A three-stage strategy is selected in order to identify the most relevant research papers namely,
227 database selection, searching and refining the sample. Literature review methodology is presented in
228 Figure3.

229 4.1. Database Selection

230 In order to track academic publications, several database engines can be utilized such as, Scopus, Web
231 of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar. A research conducted by (Falagas et al., 2008) reveals that
232 Scopus database has a preference over other databases, however, in another study performed by
233 (Wang and Waltman, 2016) journal classification of Web of Science is preferred, therefore this study
234 considers both Scopus database and Web of Science database, meanwhile, Google Scholar is also used
235 as an assistant tool.

236 4.2. Sample Searching

237 For this purpose, “effective construction and demolition waste management” as keyword in article
238 titles, abstracts and keywords is searched among articles and review papers from 2009 to December
239 2019 in both Scopus and Web of Science databases. The initial search returns 163 papers.

240 4.3. Sample Selection

241 By the application of abstract reading of 163 papers in the first step and subsequently, by in-depth
242 reading of the whole paper in circumstances in which it is impossible to identify the suitability of
243 papers, the number of 97 papers with the most relevant content is selected.
244 Results of this search indicates that there are 95 articles and 2 review papers. Among these 97 papers,
245 there are 10 open access articles, whereas, other articles are not open access. Among the years, 2019,
246 2018, 2017, and 2015 have the highest publication number within the years with 14, 11, 11, and 11
247 articles, respectively. Meanwhile, with regard to journals, the three highest number of articles are
248 published in Waste Management journal with 16 articles, 12 published articles in Resources,
249 Conservation and Recycling journal, and 11 articles published in the Journal of Cleaner Production. In
250 addition, the top three affiliations are related to Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the University of
251 Hong Kong, and Western Sydney University. Furthermore, Tam, V.W.Y with 4 articles, Yuan, H. with
252 4 articles and Lu, W. with 3 articles were top three authors. To conclude, it should be mentioned that
253 keyword content analysis of these 97 papers leads to two main factors. First, C&DW management
254 hierarchical strategies and their related topics. Second, by classification of factors affecting effective
255 C&DW management, the effective C&DW management contributing factors are also derived. Figure3
256 presents the literature review methodology of this research.
257

7
258

259 Figure3: Literature Review Methodology

260 5. Discussions

261 5.1 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Hierarchy

262 Dissimilar views on C&DW management has resulted in contradictory and conflicting waste
263 management philosophies (Lu and Yuan, 2011). Therefore, several efforts have been made to reduce,
264 reuse or recycle C&DW. Each type of waste should be managed based on efficient and proper
265 mechanisms of waste prevention. In order to achieve this goal, a waste management hierarchy should
266 be followed. Based on this hierarchy, generated waste should be recovered based on its
267 appropriateness for being reduced, reused or recycled earlier than the final stage, which is waste
268 disposal into landfills
269 (Ashe et al., 2003, Li and Du, 2015, Pickin et al., 2018, Huang et al., 2018, Jin et al., 2019).
270 Over the last couple of years, several research studies have considered the five key steps in the
271 structure of Waste Management Hierarchy (WMH) (e.g. El Haggar, 2010) including reduce, reuse,
272 recycle (3R’s), treat and disposal, however, waste treatment or recovery option is considered in
273 general waste management category and the last step which is disposal is not considered an efficient
274 waste management option. The C&DW management hierarchy rank strategies regarding priority
275 from avoiding the generation of waste, which is the most preferable outcome, and disposal as the
276 least preferable outcome.
277 Although waste management hierarchy includes 5 steps, the 3R’s principle of waste minimization
278 strategy including reduce, reuse, and recycle are considered as main elements of C&DW management
279 strategies in the academic perspective (Lu and Yuan, 2011, Huang et al., 2018). Traditionally, C&DW
280 management hierarchy including reduce, reuse and recycle seemed to be effective for the purpose of
281 C&DW management research.

8
282
283 5.1.1 Reduce
284 Reduction, among the 3Rs C&DW management strategies, is the optimal C&DW management
285 measure because of having the least detrimental effects on our environment. Therefore, reduction
286 strategy is rated as the highest priority in developing C&DW management plans (Huang et al., 2018).
287 It is substantial to reduce the amount of created waste, if created, then it is imperative to identify
288 ways to reuse the materials and finally, if materials cannot be reused then it is important to collect
289 them to recycle and then disposal which is the last step to managing C&DW. Pickin et al. (2018)
290 pointed out some benefits of reducing waste such as, generating income from collecting some
291 materials, reduce costs from purchasing less material, reducing CO2 emissions, reducing cost of
292 transportation of wastes to landfills, etc. It is important to conclude that the best environmental and
293 cost-effective solution is to reduce the amount of waste produced in construction activities by early
294 consideration of using standard sizes and quantities of materials, minimise rework from errors and
295 poor workmanship and plan to reduce off cuts (Osmani et al., 2008, Jaillon et al., 2009, Lu and Yuan,
296 2013, Bølviken and Koskela, 2016, Ding et al., 2016, Llatas and Osmani, 2016). The main barriers in the
297 proper implementation of waste reduction strategy occur when actors in the construction industry are
298 vulnerable to properly communicate and cooperate with each other and stakeholders do not have
299 common understanding among themselves regarding 3Rs C&DW management strategies due to the
300 similarity of reduce, reuse and recycle strategies. Construction actors will take the advantage of all
301 aspects of reduction strategy if reduce strategy is included in the C&DW management cycle for the
302 purpose of waste minimization, therefore, it is vital to pay extra attention to execution of the reduce
303 strategy. Regarding the rapid growth of C&DW generation worldwide, it is crucial to consider high
304 priority in implementation of reduce strategy in the construction industry (Esa et al., 2017a, Esa et al.,
305 2017b).

306 5.1.2 Reuse

307 The action or practice of utilizing pertinent building materials more than once is referred to reusing
308 C&DW, whether these materials are applied in their original purpose or even if they fulfil another
309 function (Huang et al., 2018). Most C&DW can be reused after demolition works. Reduction and reuse
310 are the most effective strategies for the purpose of saving natural resources, environmental protection
311 and saving money. Other benefits of reusing building wastes are to mitigate greenhouse gas
312 emissions, which contribute to global climate change, help maintaining the environment for future
313 generations and to allow products to be used to their fullest extent (Oyenuga, 2016, Park and Tucker,
314 2017). Various types of building materials can be recovered from construction, renovation and
315 demolition sites and then sold, stored for later use or reused on the current project. However, some
316 certain types of materials from C&D is believed to be toxic and classified as hazardous waste
317 including materials that require special handling care such as latex paint, adhesives, chemical
318 solvents (Oyenuga, 2016). In addition, another affective decision making factor in reusing C&DW is
319 the age of structures involved in demolition projects (Tam, 2011b, Akinade et al., 2015). For instance,
320 old buildings may contain materials that are no longer allowed in new construction such as asbestos.
321 Utilizing skilled workers for collecting and sorting C&DW, assigning incentive for reusing
322 construction and demolition waste, using standard design, materials and construction technology,
323 and finally, develop a market for reused material are effective ways of reusing C&DW (Huang et al.,
324 2018).

9
325 5.1.3 Recycle
326 The action of breaking down of used items in the construction in order to make new materials is
327 called C&DW recycling, however, immature management of C&DW recycling, inappropriate
328 recycling technology, and immature market for recycled products are impediments of C&DW
329 recycling (Huang et al., 2018). C&DW can be recycled onsite or offsite at a C&DW processor,
330 depending on the capacities and facilities of the project. Some certain types of materials can be
331 recycled from building sites including concrete, metal, asphalt, wood, roofing materials, plasterboard
332 and corrugated cardboard. By recycling building materials, finally a huge amount of CO2 is saved,
333 which otherwise would be released by removing waste and supplying natural building materials
334 recurrently over large distances (Oyenuga, 2016). There are several benefits to C&DW recycling, and
335 these include mitigating greenhouse gas emission’s production and other pollutants by lessening the
336 demand to pull out new raw materials. Also, it maintains landfill capacity, mitigates demand for new
337 landfills utilization and their associated costs as well as energy saving and the environmental adverse
338 impact reduction (Ashe et al., 2003, Fraser et al., 2011, Li and Du, 2015, Pickin et al., 2018).
339 Furthermore, recycling has a great impact in creating job opportunities and economic activities in
340 related industries. There is a huge market for quality-assured recycled building materials. Therefore,
341 recycled building materials have been using in the construction of roads, foundations, and sports
342 grounds, for noise protection walls, and in landscape construction (Fatemi and Imaninasab, 2016),
343 however, to warrant successful waste recycling outcome, government participation is also
344 fundamental (Esa et al., 2017a, Esa et al., 2017b).
345 Based on our research aims, we considered the following topics which are associated with C&DW
346 management hierarchy including; benefits of C&DW reduction and effectiveness measures of waste
347 reduction in C&DW generation, C&DW reduction measures and technologies implementation,
348 policies and strategies adopted in C&DW reduction in design stage, benefits of C&DW reuse, barriers
349 of C&DW reuse, considering C&DW reuse from sustainability perspective, the role of stakeholders in
350 C&DW management, the impacts of C&DW management project phases on C&DW reuse, C&DW
351 recycling motivations, drivers, and barriers, C&DW recycled material quality, quantity and future
352 market, C&DW recycling impacts from sustainability perspective, the impacts of C&DW project life
353 cycle in C&DW recycling, the role of stakeholders in C&DW recycling, C&DW management strategies
354 and etc.
355 (Chini and Nasri, 2009, Yuan and Shen, 2011, Arulrajah et al., 2013, Zhang et al., 2012, Saez et al., 2013,
356 Low et al., 2014, Duan et al., 2015, Lu et al., 2015b, Ding et al., 2016, Oyenuga, 2016, Tam and Lu, 2016,
357 Fatemi and Imaninasab, 2016, Won and Cheng, 2017, Park and Tucker, 2017, Jin et al., 2017, Esa et al.,
358 2017a, Esa et al., 2017b, Vitale et al., 2017, Marrero et al., 2017, Yuan, 2017, Li et al., 2018, Gálvez-
359 Martos et al., 2018, Ghisellini et al., 2018, Huang et al., 2018, Yazdanbakhsh, 2018, Menegaki and
360 Damigos, 2018, Wang et al., 2019, Osmani and Villoria-Sáez, 2019, Blaisi, 2019).

361 5.2 Effective Construction and Demolition Waste Management Contributing Factors
362 After discussing C&DW management hierarchy including reduce, reuse and recycle strategies, in this
363 step, the effective C&DW management contributing factors are introduced. Based on the identified
364 factors, this study classifies effective contributing factors that affect C&DW management into four
365 groups namely; Regulatory framework for sustainable C&DW management (obligation), C&DW
366 stakeholders’ attitudes (who), C&DW project life cycle (when), and finally C&DW management tools
367 (how). Figure4 illustrates effective contributing factors to C&DW management.

10
368
369 Figure 4: Effective C&DW management contributing factors

370 5.2.1 Construction and Demolition Waste Management from Sustainability Perspective
371 Sustainable development has received a significant value since the early 1980s. In this relation, solid
372 waste in the construction industry has attained extensive consideration around the globe (Lu and
373 Yuan, 2011). World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) has defined sustainable
374 development as development though which basic needs of the public are met and public aspiration
375 for a better life is satisfied without endangering the ability of future generations (Yuan, 2013b, Yuan,
376 2013a). Sustainable development places emphasis on the significance of the co-development of
377 environment, economics and social, which are also acknowledged as a triple bottom line (Li and Pak,
378 2010, Li, 2011, Yuan, 2013b).
379 The phrase environmental impact has become distinguished, particularly with regard to global
380 warming challenges and commitment to green development, provided a definition for environment
381 sustainability as ‘organizations that are sustainable ecologically use natural resources which do not
382 exceed the speed of producing them and control their emission levels to not go over the limit of the
383 ecosystem to absorb and clean up the atmosphere’. Environmental sustainability is the most
384 extensively researched and defined area in the field of sustainability study. It is based on the notion
385 that the Earth’s resources are finite and depreciated natural capital may not be replenished (Formoso
386 et al., 2002, Poon et al., 2004, Shen et al., 2007, Park and Tucker, 2017). Extreme concerns related to
387 possible harmful effects caused by the development of industrial or infrastructural projects or by the
388 release of a material into the environment are increasing (Epstein, 2018). Environmental benefits of
389 managing construction waste include best use of raw materials, cutting down CO2 emissions and
390 reducing waste going to landfills (Mihelcic et al., 2014, Oyenuga, 2016).
391 The construction industry is recognized as a main contributor to environmental pollution and
392 degradation (Shen and Tam, 2002, Lu and Yuan, 2011). For instance, Fédération Internationale du
393 Recyclage (F.I.R) indicated that each ton of waste going to landfill occupies approximately 0.6 m3
394 space of a land (Qin, 2012, Ding et al., 2016). In addition to water pollution and soil fertility ruination,
395 landfilling also causes vegetable deterioration and nitrate augmentation which affects human health.
396 An experimental research conducted by (Ding et al., 2016, Qin, 2012) revealed that 1000 m2
397 construction waste going to landfill is equal to losing 1.5 kilotons of groundwater and causes fertility

11
398 deterioration of 52.5 kg of soil each year. In addition, C&DW often comprises oil, fuel and solvents
399 which could penetrate to underground aquifers and causing water pollution (Seror et al., 2014).
400 C&DW also leads to global warming. For instance, by processing each ton of C&DW in a landfill site,
401 200 lbs. emissions susceptible for global warming is released (Poon et al., 2004, Levis, 2008, Ding et al.,
402 2016). Yuan (2013b) in his research indicated that when waste decomposes in landfill sites over time, a
403 significant amount of methane gas is released into atmosphere. In terms of global warming impact,
404 methane is 21 times more harmful than carbon dioxide (Yuan, 2013b), therefore, working effortlessly
405 to prevent waste, promote reuse and recycling, and develop markets for valuable recycled products
406 have been top priority of waste pioneers in the construction industry (Oyenuga, 2016).
407 In addition to the above-mentioned facts about environmental aspects of C&DW, the phrase
408 economic impact is gaining more interest and attention among all disciplines. This issue is related to
409 the effect that a phenomenon, changes in policy, or market trends have on economic factors (Epstein,
410 2018). A high rate of construction materials are wasted with an estimation of 20%-30% of total weight
411 of material during construction as mentioned by (Yahya and Boussabaine, 2006, Oko John and
412 Emmanuel Itodo, 2013). In parallel, construction waste management has received low attention from
413 waste practitioners and few resources and incentives are assigned to facilitate C&DW management
414 processes (Teo et al., 2000, Osmani et al., 2008). At the end of buildings life cycle, a tremendous
415 amount of construction materials are sent to landfills (Wu et al., 2016). Therefore, with the current
416 alarming rate of generated and landfilled waste, the economic impact of C&DW is crucial. 40% of the
417 material flow in the global economy belongs to construction materials (Reza et al., 2011). Moreover,
418 costs of materials contributes to 50%-60% of a construction project’s costs, thus any reduction in waste
419 generation rate leads to major cost savings on projects (Khanh and Kim, 2015). Meanwhile, disposal
420 costs and costs associated with landfilling play a vital role in financial terms (Hao et al., 2008). The
421 economic advantages to be attained from waste minimization are significant. A few studies have
422 considered both direct and indirect impacts of an escalated rate of waste diversion from landfills on
423 the augmentation in the number of jobs and sales of recycled materials (Jain, 2012, Srour et al., 2013,
424 Wu et al., 2014). This can also prevent natural resources from depletion or being diverted from
425 landfill sites (Hao et al., 2008, Hunt and Shields, 2014, Ahankoob et al., 2015). As a consequence of
426 waste generation, projects bear loss of profit due to engagement in additional delays and overhead
427 costs, productivity loss and significant waste disposal costs (Udawatta et al., 2015a, Udawatta et al.,
428 2015b).
429 Social impact is explained as the procedure of analyzing, controlling and managing the social effects
430 from planned and unplanned ways, both negative and positive, of planned involvements (plans,
431 programs, projects, and policies) and any processes of social change applied by those involvements
432 (Yuan, 2012). Regarding C&DW management, the people’s willingness to alter their behaviour and
433 attitudes pertaining to C&DW generation, collection and disposal is addressed to social impact. The
434 commitment and participation of construction stakeholders are considered as important drivers of
435 C&DW management from social perspective (Manowong, 2012, Udawatta et al., 2015a). In addition,
436 social and human capital deals with the matters pertaining to social sustainability. Human capital
437 deals with employees’ skills and loyalty. On the other hand, social capital encompasses the quality of
438 life and cultural components that are innate in each society (Kulatunga et al., 2006). Dyllick and
439 Hockerts (2002) pointed out the complexity of addressing the anticipation of various stakeholders
440 simultaneously, and trade-offs must constantly be made. Thus, (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002) came up
441 with the following description: “communities gain values through sustainability carried out socially
442 by developing the human resource and advancing the social capital among the people. It is essential

12
443 to manage social capital so that the stakeholders understand the motivations and accept the
444 organization’s value to the system”. Therefore, by proper waste management practices
445 implementation, the construction industry can gain environmental, economic and social benefits.
446 Table2 represents sustainable C&DW management contributing factors.
447 Table2: Sustainable C&DW management contributing factors

Sustainable Factors References

Construction and
Demolition Waste
Management

1. Environmental Environmental (water, soil, air, and
noise) pollution and degradation,
global warming challenges, barriers to
green development, greenhouse gas
emission, fossil fuel emission, resource
and raw materials depletion, impacts of
illegal dumping on neighborhood, etc.
(Shen and Tam, 2002, Formoso et al., 2002,
Poon et al., 2004, Poon, 2007, Shen et al.,
2007, Levis, 2008, Lu and Yuan, 2011, Yuan,
2013b, Seror et al., 2014, Li and Du, 2015,
Oyenuga, 2016, Ding et al., 2016, Park and
Tucker, 2017, Esa et al., 2017a, Esa et al.,
2017b, Silva et al., 2017, Epstein, 2018, Chen
et al., 2018)

2. Economic Cost of materials, energy, waster,
labour and equipment, costs associated
with waste transportation, costs
associated with disposal, costs of
valuable lands filled with C&DW, reuse
and recycling costs, etc.
(Yahya and Boussabaine, 2006, Osmani et al.,
2008, Hao et al., 2008, Lu and Yuan, 2011,
Reza et al., 2011, Jain, 2012, Srour et al., 2013,
Yuan, 2013a, Yuan, 2013b, Dajadian and
Koch, 2014, Ahankoob et al., 2015, Udawatta
et al., 2015a, Udawatta et al., 2015b, Li and
Du, 2015, Wu et al., 2016, Esa et al., 2017a,
Esa et al., 2017b, Silva et al., 2017, Gálvez-
Martos et al., 2018, Chen et al., 2018)

3. Social Short-term and long-term health and (Teo et al., 2000, Teo and Loosemore, 2001,
safety impacts of C&DW collection, Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002, Kulatunga et al.,
sorting and disposal, project 2006, Osmani et al., 2008, Yuan, 2013b,
stakeholders’ attitude towards C&DW Udawatta et al., 2015a, Li and Du, 2015, Esa
management, public view and et al., 2017a, Esa et al., 2017b, Chen et al.,
awareness alteration towards C&DW 2018)
management, the role of incentive to
prevent illegal C&DW dumping,
aesthetic impacts of recycling plants
and material stockpiled, etc.
448

449 5.2.2 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Regarding Stakeholders’

450 Attitudes
451 The eminence of human factors in C&DW management has received great attention from researchers
452 (Lu and Yuan, 2011). Initially, all possible ways of waste generation should be identified and
453 consequently immediate proper actions to minimize waste should be carried out by engaged and
454 dedicated stakeholders (Manowong, 2012, Udawatta et al., 2015a) unfortunately, a proper
455 consideration to the elements of waste management has been overlooked by most of the construction
456 stakeholders who concern only about profit (Manowong, 2012). A research carried out by (Osmani et
457 al., 2008) stated that stakeholders engaged in C&DW management have rarely had a clear perception
458 of their roles and responsibilities in mitigating C&DW. For instance, architects as initial designers of
459 building projects, are less involved in strategies of waste minimization because of inadequate level of

13
460 understanding of the factors that leads to waste generation in the design stage and having false
461 comprehension that liability of waste minimization is contractors’ responsibility and liability.
462 Clients play a major role in ensuring waste management and promote communication effectively and
463 support interaction between main contractors and sub-contractors. The client’s role is to establish
464 leadership by securing proper waste consideration, making certain that C&DW reduction is carried
465 out thoroughly by project parties within their roles, communicate on waste requisites with project
466 team and setting rules for material utilization in an efficient manner (Ofori, 2007), however,
467 (Manowong, 2012) found out that construction waste management is less important compared to
468 profit maximization from clients’ point of view and clients consider waste management as a factor,
469 which imposes financial burden to project. Because profit maximization is the main objective of many
470 organizations, clients are unwilling to choose efficient C&DW management methods without
471 profitability consideration (Hao et al., 2008).
472 In addition, contractors and sub-contractors play a vital role in elimination or reduction of waste
473 generated by construction activities. One of the strategic approaches towards waste elimination and
474 reduction by contractors and sub-contractors is to estimate required materials of the project and their
475 associated waste accurately and realistically. Main responsibility of contractors is to deliver the
476 requirements of clients by providing and following a waste management plan, which include clear
477 estimation and target of waste that is generated, apparent strategy for waste reduction and a
478 comprehensive strategy to satisfy that generated waste is recycled properly (Tilaye and Van Dijk,
479 2014).
480 However, site inspection should be carried out on a regular basis and waste management
481 performance should be reviewed periodically in order to point out additional requirements of waste
482 reduction (Udawatta et al., 2015a, Udawatta et al., 2015b, Khanh and Kim, 2015).
483 This approach is further reinforced by other researchers (Esin and Cosgun, 2007, Ghoddousi et al.,
484 2015, Chalker and Loosemore, 2016, Durdyev and Ismail, 2016) who mentioned that waste is
485 generated by involved workforce of a project directly or indirectly, due to low standard workmanship
486 or insufficient training. Training and education of construction workforce as effective ways to
487 minimize waste generation have also been addressed in the work of other researchers (Ding et al.,
488 2016, Llatas and Osmani, 2016). This study categorizes C&DW stakeholders into three groups namely,
489 head-contractors, consultants and sub-contractors.

490 5.2.3 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Regarding Project Life Cycle
491 A research conducted by (Poon et al., 2004) revealed that in order to reduce waste in building projects
492 it is vital that waste management plans be considered by extra attention at the planning phase of
493 project development. A series of measures were suggested by (Dainty and Brooke, 2004) through
494 supply chain management including standardized plans and designs, control of stock, on-time
495 delivery, integrated supply chain, specific sub-contracting packages and prefabrication for the
496 construction industry. Several researchers have focused on the ways through which waste could be
497 reduced during the initiation of a project (planning and design stage) by omitting errors and
498 variations and having detailed specifications (Esin and Cosgun, 2007, Khanh and Kim, 2015, Ding et
499 al., 2016). In addition, (Llatas and Osmani, 2016) considered that waste minimization can be attained
500 via sensible design strategies. However, there are other factors which affect C&DW management in
501 the planning and design stage including; BIM adoption, considering waste estimation in terms of type
502 and volume before project initiation, stakeholder’s engagement, designing waste management plan
503 and to allocate a designated team for monitoring. Other researches have also concentrated on waste

14
504 minimization strategies in the procurement stage (Levis, 2008, Butera et al., 2015, Akinade et al., 2017,
505 Wang et al., 2019). In addition, in the procurement stage, green procurement, awards and punishment
506 for engaged stakeholders are important factors as well. Moreover, in the construction stage, waste
507 management plan application and monitoring, on-site and off-site sorting techniques, collaboration
508 and communication among project teams, awards or punishment for those engaged in C&DW
509 generation and sorting, proper demolition plan, technique and machineries are among the most
510 important factors for C&DW reduction (Poon et al., 2004, Kulatunga et al., 2006, Tam et al., 2007,
511 Wang et al., 2008, Tam, 2008, Arif et al., 2009, Begum et al., 2009, Wang et al., 2010, Tam, 2011b, Tam,
512 2011a, Yuan, 2012, Poon et al., 2013, Yuan, 2013b, Yuan, 2013a). For instance, in a study carried out by
513 (Ajayi et al., 2017), on-site construction waste reduction in the construction phase has been
514 considered. Efficient construction site management is increasingly perceived as the tactical method to
515 achieve the performance required by construction projects. Meanwhile, an important project
516 requirement which has drawn attention of site managers is the comprehensiveness of project
517 sustainability which affect waste output of a project (Udawatta et al., 2015a, Ajayi and Oyedele, 2017,
518 Ajayi et al., 2017). The result of study shows that four factors including, waste minimization
519 contractual provisions, waste sorting, maximization of reusing materials and efficient logistic
520 management strategies are among the most significant factors influencing on-site waste minimization.
521 Adequate site space for material storage, equipment, and processed waste have also been addressed
522 in some research (Poon et al., 2004, Wang et al., 2010, Esa et al., 2017b, Ajayi et al., 2017). Availability
523 of local infrastructures for recycling and ease of access to them have a significant impact on results of
524 waste management (Thomas et al., 2002, Dongsheng and Li, 2010).
525 This study categorizes C&DW project life cycle into three groups namely, planning and design phase,
526 procurement phase, and construction and demolition phase. Table3 represents C&DW management
527 concerning the ways to prevent C&DW generation regarding project life cycle.
528 Table3: C&DW management concerning the ways to prevent C&DW generation, and project life cycle.

How to prevent C&DW generation? Project life Reference

cycle

1. Design for dismantling, standardization while Planning and (Gavilan and Bernold, 1994, Bossink and

designing, proper collaboration among Design phase Brouwers, 1996, Ekanayake and Ofori, 2004,

stakeholders, estimation of C&DW and C&DW Morgan and Stevenson, 2005, Osmani et al.,

generation rate before project initiation, Allocate 2008, Wang et al., 2008, Arif et al., 2009, El

enough time for auditing, Accurate and clear Haggar, 2010, Al-Hajj and Hamani, 2011,

design and detailing, Utilization of high quality Kpamma and Adjei-Kumi, 2011, Zhang et

products while designing, Accurate coordination al., 2012, Lehmann and Crocker, 2013,

and communication among designers, utilization Wang et al., 2014, Krystofik et al., 2015,

of proper tools, strategies and software to depict Llatas and Osmani, 2016, Nasiri et al., 2017,

project in a real manner, etc. Esa et al., 2017a, Esa et al., 2017b, Gamil

and Rahman, 2017, Gálvez-Martos et al.,

2018, Ghisellini et al., 2018)

2. Accurate estimation of materials before Procurement (Gavilan and Bernold, 1994, Bossink and

15
 ordering, Proper handling of materials to phase Brouwers, 1996, Lingard et al., 2000,

construction site, on-site sorting techniques, etc. Formoso et al., 2002, Dainty and Brooke,

2004, Ofori, 2007, Osmani et al., 2008, Saaty,

2008, Wang et al., 2010, Lu and Yuan, 2011,

Ann et al., 2013, Li and Yang, 2014, Butera

et al., 2015, Clough et al., 2015, Udawatta et

al., 2015a, Udawatta et al., 2015b, Durdyev

and Ismail, 2016, Lu et al., 2016, Neyestani

and Juanzon, 2016, Oyenuga, 2016, Ajayi

and Oyedele, 2017, Ajayi et al., 2017, Esa et

al., 2017b, Park and Tucker, 2017, Yuan,

2017, Gamil and Rahman, 2017, Ghisellini

et al., 2018, Bandeira et al., 2019)

3. Precise supervision on construction materials Construction (Gavilan and Bernold, 1994, Bossink and

and works, appropriate storage of material, on- and Brouwers, 1996, Faniran and Caban, 1998,

off materials handling, expert sub-contractor, Demolition Shen et al., 2004, Hao et al., 2008, Wang et

adequate communication among stakeholders, phase al., 2010, Ann et al., 2013, Oko John and

proper utilization of materials, equipment and Emmanuel Itodo, 2013, Dajadian and Koch,

machineries, etc. 2014, Gangolells et al., 2014, Marinelli et al.,

2014, Ajayi et al., 2015, Durdyev and Ismail,

2016, Ajayi et al., 2017, Ulubeyli et al., 2017,

Esa et al., 2017b, Bandeira et al., 2019)

529 It is vital to consider all phases of C&DW project management in order to effectively manage C&DW,
530 because each phase has specific actions to prevent C&DW generation.

531 5.2.4 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Tools

532 Urgent need to mitigate the amount of generated waste drawn attention of many researchers and
533 industry professionals which has led to various research. Therefore, implementation of all
534 contributing C&DW tools have been considered crucial in order to mitigating C&DW. This study
535 categorizes C&DW management tools into three categories, namely information technology tools in
536 C&DW management, C&DW management approaches, and C&DW management technologies (Jin et
537 al., 2019, Wu et al., 2019a, Wu et al., 2019b, Wu et al., 2019c).

538 5.2.4.1 Information Technology Tools in Construction and Demolition Waste

539 management

540 5.2.4.1.1 Building Information Modelling

541 One of the most critical aspect of C&DW management is to predict the quantity of waste as it is
542 crucial for C&DW management. For example, the application of Building Information Modelling
543 (BIM) have been considered by some researchers to simulate the design of the buildings before
544 construction (Akinade et al., 2015). It can enable designers to consider material volume at the

16
545 planning and design phase of a project (Huang et al., 2013, Krystofik et al., 2015). A study conducted
546 by (Cheng and Ma, 2013) about the application of building information modelling (BIM) in C&DW
547 estimation and planning reveals that BIM assigns information from multi-disciplinary areas to be
548 applied in a digital building model. In addition, information on material and their quantity can be
549 extracted via BIM implementation, which enables participants of the project to improve the
550 technologies and processes in the planning and design phase, procurement phase and construction
551 and demolition phase in order to manage C&DW efficiently (Cheng and Ma, 2013, Hamidi et al., 2014,
552 Wong and Zhou, 2015, Won et al., 2016, Won and Cheng, 2017, Xu et al., 2019).

553 5.2.4.1.2 Radio Frequency Identification

554 In Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio signals of different frequencies are utilized as a
555 communication technology in order to a specific target identification in real-time without any direct
556 contact or line-of-sight within harsh environment (Sun et al., 2013). RFID has widely been utilized on-
557 site to tackle human errors and is precisely integrated with systems of project management in
558 construction projects in order to manage and track construction materials faster and easier (Gulghane
559 and Khandve, 2015). Many technological projects use RFID technology for the purposes of warehouse
560 control, location of materials and people, control of entry and exit of products, vehicles, people,
561 identification of tools, among others. Its main advantages include speed, precision, reliability in data
562 transmission, high degree of control and inspection (Bandeira et al., 2019).

563 5.2.4.1.3 Geographic Information System and Global Positioning System

564 GIS and GPS technologies have also been addressed by some researchers in order to prevent
565 construction waste and evaluate material layout of construction site (Li et al., 2005, Su et al., 2012, Li
566 and Yang, 2014). A research carried out by (Paz et al., 2018) for the purpose of planning a network for
567 C&DW management in Brazil with the assistance of a geographic information system (GIS), reveals
568 that there are three stages in the process including, mapping the illegal waste disposal points of C&D
569 and waste classification based on its recyclability, representing proper areas for small waste
570 generators to voluntary delivery points to be installed and finally, showing proper areas for trans-
571 shipment installation areas and waste sorting regions. In another research carried out by (Madi and
572 Srour, 2019),
573 a GIS-based framework was proposed in order to manage C&DW in emergency situations in Syria.
574 The suggested framework helps in estimating C&DW quantities, automatically allocate proper land
575 for building the recycling facilities and finally, conducting economic assessment of C&DW recycling.
576 In a study conducted by (Blaisi, 2019) in Saudi Arabia dumping trucks have been proposed to be
577 monitored and checked through global positioning system (GPS). Increasing in transporting cost of
578 C&DW and landfill levies have stipulated some dumping trucks to illegal dumping their load.

579 5.2.4.1.4 Big Data

580 Big Data is a magnificent technology for storing and analyzing large volume of data. Its utilization in
581 C&DW data storage and analysis have been emerging since years ago (Bilal et al., 2016). In a research
582 conducted by (Lu et al., 2015a), waste generation rate used as a key performance indicator to
583 benchmark C&DW performance. In this study in order to exploit data, a Big Data set on construction
584 waste management in Hong Kong was applied. In another study conducted in Hong Kong, data
585 extracted from public and private sectors were analyzed using Big Data for the purpose of
586 construction waste management performance assessment (Lu et al., 2016). Other studies (Bilal et al.,

17
587 2016, Chen and Lu, 2017, Lu et al., 2018, Lu, 2019) have also focused on Big Data utilization in C&DW
588 management through storage and processing of large volume of data in the design, procurement, and
589 construction and demolition stages (Bilal et al., 2016, Ram et al., 2019).

590 5.2.4.2 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Approaches

591 5.2.4.2.1 Lean Principle

592 Some researchers have recommended that by the application of lean principles almost all sorts of
593 waste can be omitted because the philosophy of lean production is based on refocusing on the
594 proceed of production and value creation via process authenticity (Thomas et al., 2002, Dongsheng
595 and Li, 2010, Ghisellini et al., 2018).

596 5.2.4.2.2 Circular Economy

597 Pearce and Turner introduced a concept in 1990 (Pearce and Turner, 1990), which was later known as
598 circular economy (CE), however, before 1996, this concept had not been used by any country. In 1996,
599 Germany became the first country worldwide that adopted CE and legislate its implementation in its
600 economy by implementing Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act (Su et al., 2013, Esa et
601 al., 2017a). CE was later implemented by Japan, China and Finland. The concept of CE emphasizes on
602 supporting of the maximum efficiency of resource utilization, recycling of materials adoption and
603 energy efficiency, in addition to transforming wastes into resources (Esa et al., 2017a). Actually,
604 reduce, reuse, and recycle are the main elements and concepts that build the basis of CE (Huang et al.,
605 2018). CE aims at promoting compatibility among the ecosystem and economic system by organizing
606 a closed loop of materials for economic activities and fostering cleaner production and industrial
607 ecology (Chiveralls et al., 2012). A research conducted by (Pomponi and Moncaster, 2017), has
608 considered several dimensions for CE research including economic, environmental, technological,
609 societal, governmental and behavioural.

610 5.2.4.2.3 Zero Waste Approach

611 According to (Zaman, 2015), a large number of different waste streams left stakeholders no other
612 alternative except selecting environmentally polluting and inefficient waste management solutions
613 such as landfill. Urban areas lack of landfill sites, which has led authorities to look for alternative
614 waste management systems. Zero waste (ZW), which is a perceptive system of waste management,
615 which has been introduced as an alternative solution for waste problems in recent decades in many
616 cities such as Adelaide, San Francisco, and Vancouver (Connett, 2013, Zaman and Lehmann, 2011,
617 Zaman, 2015).
618 Since, ZW concept motivates sustainable consumption and production, optimization of resource
619 recovery and recycling and prevents wastes from incineration and landfilling, it has also been
620 adopted by policymakers. ZW concept has been applied and perceived by waste management
621 authorities in several ways (Li and Du, 2015). For instance, several studies have asserted to attain zero
622 waste aims with utilizing waste-to-energy technology simultaneously, such as incineration, as waste
623 recovery strategy although zero waste concepts ban incineration and landfills and in general, zero
624 waste concept still needs to be expanded in order to achieve its widely applicability (Abbasi et al.,
625 2012, Premalatha et al., 2013, Björk, 2015). A research conducted by (Zaman and Lehmann, 2011)
626 propose that a ZW city should recover 100% of its resources from waste and should reach 100 %
627 recycling rate.

18
628 5.2.4.2.4 Green Rating System
629 Green rating systems throughout the world are widely applied in order to assess sustainability of
630 construction processes. Some of these sustainability assessment tools including BREEAM (Building
631 Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), LEED (Leadership in Energy and
632 Environmental Design), and Green Star have widely been utilized to foster construction processes in a
633 more environmentally friendly manner. For instance, BREEAM was introduced in 1990 in United
634 Kingdom, LEED came to action in 1996 in United States, and Green Star was introduced in Australia
635 in 2003 (Esa et al., 2017a, Esa et al., 2017b).

636 5.2.4.2.5 Site Waste Management Plan

637 Site waste management plan (SWMP) is becoming popular nowadays as a valuable approach for the
638 purpose of assisting construction stakeholders to anticipate and officially note the quantity and type
639 of C&DW and take appropriate decisions in order to manage it when necessary. This plan focuses on
640 the construction project’s lifecycle, starting from the planning and designing stage to the demolition
641 stage. SWMP is a legislative requirement for construction activities in many nations (Esa et al., 2017a,
642 Esa et al., 2017b). For instance, in the United Kingdom, Sie Waste Management Plan regulation, which
643 is a legislative framework, requires projects above £300,000 to develop SWMP before construction
644 phase initiation. Another example for this is the introduction of site waste plan in Hong Kong in 2003
645 for construction industry, although it received negative feedback from some C&DW practitioners, as
646 it was considered to decrease productivity (Tam, 2008). SWMP is also a mandatory requirement for
647 planning approval of some construction projects in Australia (Hardie et al., 2007). Preconstruction
648 strategies as well as statement of details of proposed strategies for waste management during and
649 after construction should be stated in a standard SWMP. The main purposes of creating SWMP is to
650 set waste diversion target, proper waste sorting, collection and auditing, to improve profitability and
651 efficiency of waste management, and ensuring that waste reduction, reuse and recycling are carried
652 out adequately in a proper manner (Ajayi et al., 2015).

653 5.2.4.3 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Technologies

654 Industrialized building system (IBS) and modular construction have also been considered by several
655 researchers (Tam et al., 2007, Jaillon et al., 2009). Capability of prefabrication in reducing construction
656 waste is undeniable. Based on a research conducted by (Tam et al., 2007), an average of 52% waste
657 reduction through prefabrication is achievable, however, prefabrication has some disadvantages
658 including less flexibility with plans and manufacturing and limitation on transportation (Jaillon et al.,
659 2009).Therefore, the application of prefabrication or other off-site construction techniques are not
660 used in many construction projects because waste minimization through utilization of these
661 techniques is practically impossible. Although the significance of site management techniques in
662 driving innovative technologies and project performance enhancement is undeniable, most waste
663 management research have focused on applicable new construction techniques and the application of
664 innovative and unique methods in construction (Poon et al., 2004, Jaillon et al., 2009, Lu and Yuan,
665 2011). The following table indicates C&DW management tools.

666 Table4: Construction and Demolition Waste Minimization Tools

C&DW Minimization Tools Sub-category References

19
 1. Information Technology
Tools
2. C&DW Approaches
1. BIM (Formoso et al., 2002, Tam, 2008, Kofoworola and Gheewala,
2. RFID 2009, Chini and Nasri, 2009, Dongsheng and Li, 2010,
3. GIS Nowosielski et al., 2010, del Río Merino et al., 2010, Coelho and
4. GPS de Brito, 2011, Al-Hajj and Hamani, 2011, Reza et al., 2011,
5. Big Data Saghafi and Teshnizi, 2011, Jain, 2012, Oko John and Emmanuel
Itodo, 2013, Guerrero et al., 2013, Huang et al., 2013, Lehmann
and Crocker, 2013, Premalatha et al., 2013, Marinelli et al., 2014,
Safa et al., 2014, Akinade et al., 2015, Zaman, 2015, Fatemi and
Imaninasab, 2016, Wu et al., 2016, Tam and Lu, 2016, Lu et al.,
2017, Park and Tucker, 2017, Esa et al., 2017a, Esa et al., 2017b)
1. Lean (Faniran and Caban, 1998, Teo and Loosemore, 2001, Martin
Construction and Scott, 2003, Kulatunga et al., 2006, Manowong and Perera,
2. Circular 2008, Osmani et al., 2008, Wang et al., 2008, Walker, 2008,
Economy Blengini, 2009, Jaillon et al., 2009, Wang et al., 2010, Lu and
3. Zero Waste Yuan, 2010, del Río Merino et al., 2010, Coelho and de Brito,
4. Green Rating 2011, Banias et al., 2011, Mercante et al., 2012, Yuan, 2013b)
System
5. Site Waste
Management
Plan

3. C&DW Management
Technologies
1. (Johnston and Mincks, 1995, Poon et al., 2004, Osmani et al.,
Prefabrication 2008, Arif et al., 2009, Begum et al., 2009, Chini and Nasri, 2009,
2. Huang et al., 2013, Lu and Yuan, 2010, Wang et al., 2010, Li,
Modularization 2011, Lachimpadi et al., 2012, Li and Yang, 2014, Low et al.,
2014, Gangolells et al., 2014, Krystofik et al., 2015, Akinade et
al., 2015, Akinade et al., 2017, Esa et al., 2017a, Esa et al., 2017b)

667 Table4 indicates that C&DW minimization tools has gained attention among researchers in the last
668 years due to providing assessment criteria and measurement tools for C&DW management.

669 6. Conclusions
670 The associated problems with inefficient C&DW management are still persistent and researchers have
671 devoted lots of efforts to tackle these problems. It is necessary to conduct C&DW management
672 effectively in order to preserve our precious resources from devastation and natural habitat from
673 degradation. In order to effectively manage C&DW, two important parameters should be applied
674 together. First, C&DW management hierarchy including reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies and
675 their associated factors should be followed respectively. Second, effective C&DW management
676 contributing factors including C&DW from sustainability perspective, C&DW stakeholders’ attitudes,
677 C&DW project life cycle, and C&DW management tools should be identified and then be
678 incorporated with the first parameter.
679 This research builds a strong and systematic foundation for C&DW management studies by
680 identification and classification of contributing factors in effective C&DW management. Meanwhile,
681 this review in C&DW management, provides in-depth perception of effective management of C&DW,
682 which is utilized as a reference for scholars for their future research in this area as well as assisting
683 C&DW practitioners to improve their performance by considering and focusing on effective C&DW
684 management in order to mitigate C&DW and its detrimental impacts on environment.
685 To conclude, this research summarizes current research disparities within current status of C&DW
686 management body of knowledge by identifying five major gaps, which clarifies the way towards
687 future research in the area of C&DW management.

20
688 6.1 C&DW management status in developed and developing countries
689 There is a significant difference between developing and developed countries regarding C&DW
690 management. Most of the challenges faced by C&DW practitioners in developed countries including,
691 reducing greenhouse gas emissions, commitment to carbon policy, improving in C&DW recycling
692 tools and technologies, educating and training programs for waste practitioners to alter their attitudes
693 towards better management of C&DW, implementing circular economy, developing more C&DW
694 recycling facilities in urban and rural areas, and to develop market of recycled products and
695 materials, on the other hand, developing countries are steps ahead, however, they also struggle with
696 insufficient and imprecise data on C&DW generation, reuse, recycling, and diversion rate from
697 landfills. There are significant practical, economic, cultural and attitudinal differences between
698 developed and developing countries regarding C&DW management. For instance, in developing
699 countries, C&DW management is seen as a government responsibility, however, in developed
700 countries all C&DW practitioners see themselves as stakeholders and shareholders in C&DW
701 management. Therefore, it is recommended that C&DW management needs to be studied and
702 considered within the specific context of a region or country.

703 6.2 Effectiveness of C&DW management

704 This research contributes to identification and classification of effective C&DW management
705 associated factors, however, there should be a measure to assess C&DW effectiveness. Although some
706 researchers have conducted research on the effectiveness assessment of C&DW management by
707 focusing on some indexes such as; waste generation rate, life cycle assessment from sustainability
708 perspective, etc. the effectiveness of C&DW management has not yet been well benchmarked and
709 there is a great need to develop a more comprehensive mechanism to assess C&DW management
710 performance.

711 6.3 Stakeholder attitudes in C&DW management

712 Although C&DW stakeholders have been addressed in many researches, there is still a great need to
713 study how C&DW stakeholders’ attitudes change C&DW diversion rate by utilizing different
714 methods, such as incentives, fines and penalties, training, etc. Meanwhile, despite considering C&DW
715 minimization only through the construction phase, there should be an equal consideration to C&DW
716 management throughout the whole C&DW project life cycle.

717 6.4 C&DW management tools

718 There is a great need to pay extra attention to C&DW management new tools, technologies,
719 techniques and materials. Some forms of C&DW management IT tools, approaches or techniques
720 have been addressed in previous research solely, e.g. prefabrication or circular economy. However,
721 there is a great need to consider as much C&DW management tools as possible in future practical
722 efforts in order to effectively manage C&DW

723 6.5 C&DW hierarchy management

724 In order to effectively manage C&DW, it is mandatory to consider C&DW management hierarchy
725 including reduce, reuse and recycle strategies and effective C&DW management contributing factors,
726 however, there are a lot of overlaps in their context. It is recommended that the effect of each C&DW
727 management hierarchy (reduce, reuse or recycle) on the effectiveness of C&DW management is
728 studied in the future research.

21
729 This study of effective C&DW management is limited to its recruited journal articles in English
730 language without considering other publications such as conference proceedings, and magazines and
731 other publications in languages other than English, which are considered as limitations of this
732 research.

733 7. References

734 1. ABBASI, T., PREMALATHA, M. & ABBASI, S. J. C. S. 2012. Masdar City: a zero carbon, zero
735 waste myth. 102, 12.
736 2. AHANKOOB, A., MANLEY, K. & STEINHARDT, D. 2015. The application of building information
737 modeling to enhance organisational learning.
738 3. AJAYI, S. O. & OYEDELE, L. O. 2017. Policy imperatives for diverting construction waste from
739 landfill: Experts’ recommendations for UK policy expansion. Journal of cleaner production,
740 147, 57-65.
741 4. AJAYI, S. O., OYEDELE, L. O., AKINADE, O. O., BILAL, M., OWOLABI, H. A., ALAKA, H. A. &
742 KADIRI, K. O. 2016. Reducing waste to landfill: A need for cultural change in the UK
743 construction industry. Journal of Building Engineering, 5, 185-193.
744 5. AJAYI, S. O., OYEDELE, L. O., BILAL, M., AKINADE, O. O., ALAKA, H. A. & OWOLABI, H. A. 2017.
745 Critical management practices influencing on-site waste minimization in construction
746 projects. Waste management, 59, 330-339.
747 6. AJAYI, S. O., OYEDELE, L. O., BILAL, M., AKINADE, O. O., ALAKA, H. A., OWOLABI, H. A. &
748 KADIRI, K. O. 2015. Waste effectiveness of the construction industry: Understanding the
749 impediments and requisites for improvements. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 102,
750 101-112.
751 7. AKHTAR, A. & SARMAH, A. K. 2018. Construction and demolition waste generation and
752 properties of recycled aggregate concrete: a global perspective. Journal of Cleaner
753 Production, 186, 262-281.
754 8. AKINADE, O. O., OYEDELE, L. O., AJAYI, S. O., BILAL, M., ALAKA, H. A., OWOLABI, H. A., BELLO,
755 S. A., JAIYEOBA, B. E. & KADIRI, K. O. 2017. Design for Deconstruction (DfD): Critical success
756 factors for diverting end-of-life waste from landfills. Waste management, 60, 3-13.
757 9. AKINADE, O. O., OYEDELE, L. O., BILAL, M., AJAYI, S. O., OWOLABI, H. A., ALAKA, H. A. &
758 BELLO, S. A. 2015. Waste minimisation through deconstruction: A BIM based
759 Deconstructability Assessment Score (BIM-DAS). Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 105,
760 167-176.
761 10. AL-HAJJ, A. & HAMANI, K. 2011. Material waste in the UAE construction industry: Main
762 causes and minimization practices. Architectural engineering and design management, 7,
763 221-235.
764 11. ANN, T., POON, C., WONG, A., YIP, R. & JAILLON, L. 2013. Impact of construction waste
765 disposal charging scheme on work practices at construction sites in Hong Kong. Waste
766 management, 33, 138-146.
767 12. ARIF, M., EGBU, C., HALEEM, A., KULONDA, D. & KHALFAN, M. 2009. State of green
768 construction in India: drivers and challenges. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology.
769 13. ARULRAJAH, A., PIRATHEEPAN, J., DISFANI, M. M. & BO, M. W. 2013. Geotechnical and
770 geoenvironmental properties of recycled construction and demolition materials in pavement
771 subbase applications. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 25, 1077-1088.
772 14. ASHE, B., NEWTON, P. W., ENKER, R., BELL, J., APELT, R., HOUGH, R., THOMAS, P.,
773 MCWHINNEY, S., LOVERIDGE, R. & DAVIS, M. 2003. Sustainability and the building code of
774 Australia.
775 15. BANDEIRA, S. R., MACIEL, J. B. S., DE OLIVEIRA, J. C. S. & SANCHES, A. E. 2019. Construction
776 and Demolition Waste Management Practices at Construction Sites. International Journal of
777 Advanced Engineering Research and Science, 6.

22
778 16. BANIAS, G., ACHILLAS, C., VLACHOKOSTAS, C., MOUSSIOPOULOS, N. & PAPAIOANNOU, I.
779 2011. A web-based Decision Support System for the optimal management of construction
780 and demolition waste. Waste Management, 31, 2497-2502.
781 17. BANIHASHEMI, S., HOSSEINI, M. R., GOLIZADEH, H. & SANKARAN, S. 2017. Critical success
782 factors (CSFs) for integration of sustainability into construction project management
783 practices in developing countries. International Journal of Project Management, 35, 1103-
784 1119.
785 18. BEGUM, R. A., SIWAR, C., PEREIRA, J. J. & JAAFAR, A. H. 2007. Implementation of waste
786 management and minimisation in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resources,
787 Conservation and Recycling, 51, 190-202.
788 19. BEGUM, R. A., SIWAR, C., PEREIRA, J. J. & JAAFAR, A. H. 2009. Attitude and behavioral factors
789 in waste management in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and
790 Recycling, 53, 321-328.
791 20. BILAL, M., OYEDELE, L. O., AKINADE, O. O., AJAYI, S. O., ALAKA, H. A., OWOLABI, H. A.,
792 QADIR, J., PASHA, M. & BELLO, S. A. 2016. Big data architecture for construction waste
793 analytics (CWA): A conceptual framework. Journal of Building Engineering, 6, 144-156.
794 21. BJÖRK, H. 2015. Zero Waste Society in Borås City, Sweden Strategies to Action.
795 22. BLAISI, N. I. 2019. Construction and demolition waste management in Saudi Arabia: Current
796 practice and roadmap for sustainable management. Journal of cleaner production, 221, 167-
797 175.
798 23. BLENGINI, G. A. 2009. Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: A case study
799 in Turin, Italy. Building and environment, 44, 319-330.
800 24. BØLVIKEN, T. & KOSKELA, L. 2016. Why Hasn’t Waste Reduction Conquered Construction?
801 25. BORGHI, G., PANTINI, S. & RIGAMONTI, L. 2018. Life cycle assessment of non-hazardous
802 Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) management in Lombardy Region (Italy). Journal
803 of cleaner production, 184, 815-825.
804 26. BOSSINK, B. & BROUWERS, H. 1996. Construction waste: quantification and source
805 evaluation. Journal of construction engineering and management, 122, 55-60.
806 27. BUTERA, S., CHRISTENSEN, T. H. & ASTRUP, T. F. 2015. Life cycle assessment of construction
807 and demolition waste management. Waste management, 44, 196-205.
808 28. CALVO, N., VARELA-CANDAMIO, L. & NOVO-CORTI, I. 2014. A dynamic model for
809 construction and demolition (C&D) waste management in Spain: Driving policies based on
810 economic incentives and tax penalties. Sustainability, 6, 416-435.
811 29. CHA, H. S., KIM, J. & HAN, J.-Y. 2009. Identifying and assessing influence factors on improving
812 waste management performance for building construction projects. Journal of construction
813 engineering and management, 135, 647-656.
814 30. CHALKER, M. & LOOSEMORE, M. 2016. Trust and productivity in Australian construction
815 projects: a subcontractor perspective. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
816 Management.
817 31. CHEN, J., SU, Y., SI, H. & CHEN, J. 2018. Managerial areas of construction and demolition
818 waste: A scientometric review. International journal of environmental research and public
819 health, 15, 2350.
820 32. CHEN, X. & LU, W. 2017. Identifying factors influencing demolition waste generation in Hong
821 Kong. Journal of cleaner production, 141, 799-811.
822 33. CHENG, J. C. & MA, L. Y. 2013. A BIM-based system for demolition and renovation waste
823 estimation and planning. Waste management, 33, 1539-1551.
824 34. CHINI, A. R. & NASRI, E. 2009. Sustainable development, engineering education and Iranian
825 academe: strategies and related issues. Bimonthly Journal of Faculty of Engineering
826 (University of Tehran), 43, 191-198.

23
827 35. CHIVERALLS, K., PALMER, J., ZILLANTE, G., ZUO, J., WILSON, L. & PULLEN, S. 2012.
828 Reconsidering sustainable building and design: lessons from China, Germany and Australia.
829 International Society for Ecological Economics.
830 36. CLOUGH, R. H., SEARS, G. A., SEARS, S. K., SEGNER, R. O. & ROUNDS, J. L. 2015. Construction
831 contracting: A practical guide to company management, John Wiley & Sons.
832 37. COELHO, A. & DE BRITO, J. 2011. Distribution of materials in construction and demolition
833 waste in Portugal. Waste Management & Research, 29, 843-853.
834 38. CONNETT, P. 2013. Zero Waste 2020: sustainability in our hands. Motivating Change:
835 Sustainable Design and Behaviour in the Built Environment. Routledge.
836 39. COUTO, A. & COUTO, J. P. 2010. Guidelines to improve construction and demolition waste
837 management in Portugal. Process Management. IntechOpen.
838 40. DAINTY, A. R. & BROOKE, R. J. 2004. Towards improved construction waste minimisation: a
839 need for improved supply chain integration? Structural Survey.
840 41. DAJADIAN, S. A. & KOCH, D. C. 2014. Waste management models and their applications on
841 construction sites. International journal of construction engineering and management, 3, 91-
842 98.
843 42. DEL RÍO MERINO, M., IZQUIERDO GRACIA, P. & WEIS AZEVEDO, I. S. 2010. Sustainable
844 construction: construction and demolition waste reconsidered. Waste management &
845 research, 28, 118-129.
846 43. DING, Z., YI, G., TAM, V. W. & HUANG, T. 2016. A system dynamics-based environmental
847 performance simulation of construction waste reduction management in China. Waste
848 Management, 51, 130-141.
849 44. DOMINGO, N., OSMANI, M. & PRICE, A. Con-struction waste minimisation in the UK
850 healthcare industry. IN: Dainty, RJ. Proceedings of the 25th Annual ARCOM Conference,
851 2009. ARCOM (cс ARCOM and the authors) Please cite the published version., 7-9.
852 45. DONGSHENG, Z. & LI, C. The research on the construction of lean project culture. 2010 IEEE
853 International Conference on Advanced Management Science (ICAMS 2010), 2010.
854 46. DUAN, H., WANG, J. & HUANG, Q. 2015. Encouraging the environmentally sound
855 management of C&D waste in China: an integrative review and research agenda. Renewable
856 and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 43, 611-620.
857 47. DURDYEV, S. & ISMAIL, S. 2016. On-site construction productivity in Malaysian infrastructure
858 projects. Structural Survey.
859 48. DYLLICK, T. & HOCKERTS, K. 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.
860 Business strategy and the environment, 11, 130-141.
861 49. EKANAYAKE, L. L. & OFORI, G. 2004. Building waste assessment score: design-based tool.
862 Building and Environment, 39, 851-861.
863 50. EL HAGGAR, S. 2010. Sustainable industrial design and waste management: cradle-to-cradle
864 for sustainable development, Academic Press.
865 51. EPSTEIN, M. J. 2018. Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring
866 corporate social, environmental and economic impacts, Routledge.
867 52. ESA, M. R., HALOG, A. & RIGAMONTI, L. 2017a. Developing strategies for managing
868 construction and demolition wastes in Malaysia based on the concept of circular economy.
869 Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 19, 1144-1154.
870 53. ESA, M. R., HALOG, A. & RIGAMONTI, L. 2017b. Strategies for minimizing construction and
871 demolition wastes in Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 120, 219-229.
872 54. ESIN, T. & COSGUN, N. 2007. A study conducted to reduce construction waste generation in
873 Turkey. Building and Environment, 42, 1667-1674.
874 55. FALAGAS, M. E., PITSOUNI, E. I., MALIETZIS, G. A. & PAPPAS, G. 2008. Comparison of
875 PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB
876 journal, 22, 338-342.

24
877 56. FANIRAN, O. & CABAN, G. 1998. Minimizing waste on construction project sites. Engineering
878 Construction and Architectural Management, 5, 182-188.
879 57. FATEMI, S. & IMANINASAB, R. 2016. Performance evaluation of recycled asphalt mixtures by
880 construction and demolition waste materials. Construction and Building Materials, 120, 450-
881 456.
882 58. FORMOSO, C. T., SOIBELMAN, L., DE CESARE, C. & ISATTO, E. L. 2002. Material waste in
883 building industry: main causes and prevention. Journal of construction engineering and
884 management, 128, 316-325.
885 59. FRASER, P., KRUMMEL, P., DUNSE, B., STEELE, P., DEREK, N. & ALLISON, C. 2011. DSEWPaC
886 research projects 2010–11. Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Aspendale.
887 60. GÁLVEZ-MARTOS, J.-L., STYLES, D., SCHOENBERGER, H. & ZESCHMAR-LAHL, B. 2018.
888 Construction and demolition waste best management practice in Europe. Resources,
889 Conservation and Recycling, 136, 166-178.
890 61. GAMIL, Y. & RAHMAN, I. A. 2017. Identification of causes and effects of poor communication
891 in construction industry: A theoretical review. Emerging Science Journal, 1, 239-247.
892 62. GANGOLELLS, M., CASALS, M., FORCADA, N. & MACARULLA, M. 2014. Analysis of the
893 implementation of effective waste management practices in construction projects and sites.
894 Resources, conservation and recycling, 93, 99-111.
895 63. GAVILAN, R. M. & BERNOLD, L. E. 1994. Source evaluation of solid waste in building
896 construction. Journal of construction engineering and management, 120, 536-552.
897 64. GHAFOURIAN, K., MOHAMED, Z., ISMAIL, S., ABOLGHASEMI, M. & BAVAFA, A. 2017.
898 Sustainable Construction And Demolition Waste Management In Malaysia: Current Issues.
899 Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 15.
900 65. GHISELLINI, P., JI, X., LIU, G. & ULGIATI, S. 2018. Evaluating the transition towards cleaner
901 production in the construction and demolition sector of China: A review. Journal of Cleaner
902 Production, 195, 418-434.
903 66. GHODDOUSI, P., POORAFSHAR, O., CHILESHE, N. & HOSSEINI, M. R. 2015. Labour
904 productivity in Iranian construction projects. International Journal of Productivity and
905 Performance Management.
906 67. GUERRERO, L. A., MAAS, G. & HOGLAND, W. 2013. Solid waste management challenges for
907 cities in developing countries. Waste management, 33, 220-232.
908 68. GULGHANE, A. & KHANDVE, P. 2015. Management for construction materials and control of
909 construction waste in construction industry: a review. International Journal of Engineering
910 Research and Applications, 5, 59-64.
911 69. HAMIDI, B., BULBUL, T., PEARCE, A. & THABET, W. Potential application of BIM in cost-
912 benefit analysis of demolition waste management. Construction Research Congress 2014:
913 Construction in a Global Network, 2014. 279-288.
914 70. HAO, J. L., HILL, M. J. & SHEN, L. Y. 2008. Managing construction waste on-site through
915 system dynamics modelling: the case of Hong Kong. Engineering, Construction and
916 Architectural Management.
917 71. HARDIE, M., KHAN, S., O'DONNELL, A. & MILLER, G. 2007. The efficacy of waste management
918 plans in Australian commercial construction refurbishment projects. Construction Economics
919 and Building, 7, 26-36.
920 72. HASSAN, S. H., AHZAHAR, N., FAUZI, M. A. & EMAN, J. 2012. Waste management issues in
921 the northern region of Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 42, 175-181.
922 73. HUANG, B., WANG, X., KUA, H., GENG, Y., BLEISCHWITZ, R. & REN, J. 2018. Construction and
923 demolition waste management in China through the 3R principle. Resources, Conservation
924 and Recycling, 129, 36-44.
925 74. HUANG, T., SHI, F., TANIKAWA, H., FEI, J. & HAN, J. 2013. Materials demand and
926 environmental impact of buildings construction and demolition in China based on dynamic
927 material flow analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 72, 91-101.

25
928 75. HUNT, N. & SHIELDS, J. 2014. Waste Management Strategy 2014 and beyond. Loughborough
929 University.
930 76. JAILLON, L., POON, C.-S. & CHIANG, Y. 2009. Quantifying the waste reduction potential of
931 using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste management, 29, 309-
932 320.
933 77. JAIN, M. 2012. Economic Aspects of Construction Waste Materials in terms of cost savings–A
934 case of Indian construction Industry. International Journal of Scientific and Research
935 Publications, 2, 1-7.
936 78. JIN, R., LI, B., ZHOU, T., WANATOWSKI, D. & PIROOZFAR, P. 2017. An empirical study of
937 perceptions towards construction and demolition waste recycling and reuse in China.
938 Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 126, 86-98.
939 79. JIN, R., YUAN, H. & CHEN, Q. 2019. Science mapping approach to assisting the review of
940 construction and demolition waste management research published between 2009 and
941 2018. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 140, 175-188.
942 80. JINGKUANG, L. & YOUSONG, W. 2011. Establishment and application of performance
943 assessment model of waste management in architectural engineering projects in China.
944 Systems Engineering Procedia, 1, 147-155.
945 81. JOHNSTON, H. & MINCKS, W. R. 1995. Cost-effective waste minimization for construction
946 managers. Cost Engineering, 37, 31.
947 82. KABIRIFAR, K. & MOJTAHEDI, M. 2019. The impact of Engineering, Procurement and
948 Construction (EPC) Phases on Project Performance: A Case of Large-scale Residential
949 Construction Project. Buildings, 9, 15.
950 83. KALUTARA, P., ZHANG, G., SETUNGE, S. & WAKEFIELD, R. 2017. Factors that influence
951 Australian community buildings’ sustainable management. Engineering, Construction and
952 Architectural Management.
953 84. KARUNASENA, G. & AMARATUNGA, D. 2016. Capacity building for post disaster construction
954 and demolition waste management. Disaster Prevention and Management.
955 85. KHANH, H. D. & KIM, S. Y. 2015. Development of waste occurrence level indicator in Vietnam
956 construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.
957 86. KOFOWOROLA, O. F. & GHEEWALA, S. H. 2009. Estimation of construction waste generation
958 and management in Thailand. Waste management, 29, 731-738.
959 87. KPAMMA, E. Z. & ADJEI-KUMI, T. 2011. Management of waste in the building design process:
960 The Ghanaian consultants' perspective. Architectural Engineering and Design Management,
961 7, 102-112.
962 88. KRYSTOFIK, M., WAGNER, J. & GAUSTAD, G. 2015. Leveraging intellectual property rights to
963 encourage green product design and remanufacturing for sustainable waste management.
964 Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 97, 44-54.
965 89. KUCUKVAR, M., EGILMEZ, G. & TATARI, O. 2016. Life cycle assessment and optimization-
966 based decision analysis of construction waste recycling for a LEED-certified university
967 building. Sustainability, 8, 89.
968 90. KULATUNGA, U., AMARATUNGA, D., HAIGH, R. & RAMEEZDEEN, R. 2006. Attitudes and
969 perceptions of construction workforce on construction waste in Sri Lanka. Management of
970 Environmental Quality: An International Journal.
971 91. LACHIMPADI, S. K., PEREIRA, J. J., TAHA, M. R. & MOKHTAR, M. 2012. Construction waste
972 minimisation comparing conventional and precast construction (Mixed System and IBS)
973 methods in high-rise buildings: A Malaysia case study. Resources, Conservation and
974 Recycling, 68, 96-103.
975 92. LEHMANN, S. & CROCKER, R. 2013. Designing for zero waste: consumption, technologies and
976 the built environment, Routledge.
977 93. LEVIS, J. W. 2008. A Life-Cycle Analysis of Alternatives for the Management of Waste Hot-
978 Mix Asphalt, Commercial Food Waste, and Construction and Demolition Waste.

26
 979 94. LI, H., CHEN, Z., YONG, L. & KONG, S. C. 2005. Application of integrated GPS and GIS
980 technology for reducing construction waste and improving construction efficiency.
981 Automation in Construction, 14, 323-331.
982 95. LI, M. & YANG, J. 2014. Critical factors for waste management in office building retrofit
983 projects in Australia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 93, 85-98.
984 96. LI, N., HAN, R. & LU, X. 2018. Bibliometric analysis of research trends on solid waste reuse
985 and recycling during 1992–2016. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 130, 109-117.
986 97. LI, R. Y. M. 2011. Building our sustainable cities, Common Ground Pub. at On Sustainability, a
987 series.
988 98. LI, R. Y. M. & DU, H. 2015. Sustainable construction waste management in Australia: a
989 motivation perspective. Construction Safety and Waste Management. Springer.
990 99. LI, R. Y. M. & PAK, D. H. A. 2010. Resistance and motivation to share sustainable
991 development knowledge by Web 2.0. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 9,
992 251-262.
993 100. LINGARD, H., GRAHAM, P. & SMITHERS, G. 2000. Employee perceptions of the solid
994 waste management system operating in a large Australian contracting organization:
995 implications for company policy implementation. Construction Management & Economics,
996 18, 383-393.
997 101. LLATAS, C. & OSMANI, M. 2016. Development and validation of a building design
998 waste reduction model. Waste management, 56, 318-336.
999 102. LOW, S. P., GAO, S. & SEE, Y. L. 2014. Strategies and measures for implementing eco-
1000 labelling schemes in Singapore's construction industry. Resources, conservation and
1001 recycling, 89, 31-40.
1002 103. LU, H. R., EL HANANDEH, A. & GILBERT, B. P. 2017. A comparative life cycle study of
1003 alternative materials for Australian multi-storey apartment building frame constructions:
1004 Environmental and economic perspective. Journal of cleaner production, 166, 458-473.
1005 104. LU, W. 2019. Big data analytics to identify illegal construction waste dumping: A
1006 Hong Kong study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 264-272.
1007 105. LU, W., CHEN, X., HO, D. C. & WANG, H. 2016. Analysis of the construction waste
1008 management performance in Hong Kong: the public and private sectors compared using big
1009 data. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 521-531.
1010 106. LU, W., CHEN, X., PENG, Y. & LIU, X. 2018. The effects of green building on
1011 construction waste minimization: Triangulating ‘big data’with ‘thick data’. Waste
1012 management, 79, 142-152.
1013 107. LU, W., CHEN, X., PENG, Y. & SHEN, L. 2015a. Benchmarking construction waste
1014 management performance using big data. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 105, 49-
1015 58.
1016 108. LU, W., PENG, Y., WEBSTER, C. & ZUO, J. 2015b. Stakeholders’ willingness to pay for
1017 enhanced construction waste management: A Hong Kong study. Renewable and Sustainable
1018 Energy Reviews, 47, 233-240.
1019 109. LU, W. & YUAN, H. 2010. Exploring critical success factors for waste management in
1020 construction projects of China. Resources, conservation and recycling, 55, 201-208.
1021 110. LU, W. & YUAN, H. 2011. A framework for understanding waste management studies
1022 in construction. Waste management, 31, 1252-1260.
1023 111. LU, W. & YUAN, H. 2013. Investigating waste reduction potential in the upstream
1024 processes of offshore prefabrication construction. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
1025 Reviews, 28, 804-811.
1026 112. MADI, N. & SROUR, I. 2019. Managing emergency construction and demolition
1027 waste in Syria using GIS. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 163-175.

27
1028 113. MANOWONG, E. 2012. Investigating factors influencing construction waste
1029 management efforts in developing countries: an experience from Thailand. Waste
1030 Management & Research, 30, 56-71.
1031 114. MANOWONG, E. & PERERA, R. 2008. Construction waste management from a
1032 gender perspective. GMSARN (Greater Mekong Sub-region Academic and Research Network)
1033 International Journal, 2, 91-100.
1034 115. MARINELLI, M., DOLAN, M., SPILLANE, J. P. & KONANAHALLI, A. 2014. Material
1035 waste in the Northern Ireland construction industry: On-site management causes and
1036 methods of prevention.
1037 116. MARRERO, M., PUERTO, M., RIVERO-CAMACHO, C., FREIRE-GUERRERO, A. & SOLÍS-
1038 GUZMÁN, J. 2017. Assessing the economic impact and ecological footprint of construction
1039 and demolition waste during the urbanization of rural land. Resources, Conservation and
1040 Recycling, 117, 160-174.
1041 117. MARTIN, A. & SCOTT, I. 2003. The effectiveness of the UK landfill tax. Journal of
1042 environmental planning and management, 46, 673-689.
1043 118. MARZOUK, M. & AZAB, S. 2014. Environmental and economic impact assessment of
1044 construction and demolition waste disposal using system dynamics. Resources, conservation
1045 and recycling, 82, 41-49.
1046 119. MENEGAKI, M. & DAMIGOS, D. 2018. A review on current situation and challenges of
1047 construction and demolition waste management. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable
1048 Chemistry, 13, 8-15.
1049 120. MERCANTE, I. T., BOVEA, M. D., IBÁÑEZ-FORÉS, V. & ARENA, A. P. 2012. Life cycle
1050 assessment of construction and demolition waste management systems: a Spanish case
1051 study. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17, 232-241.
1052 121. MIHELCIC, J. R., ZIMMERMAN, J. B. & AUER, M. T. 2014. Environmental engineering:
1053 Fundamentals, sustainability, design, Wiley Hoboken, NJ.
1054 122. MORGAN, C. & STEVENSON, F. 2005. Design and detailing for deconstruction.
1055 Scotland Environmental Design Association, SEDA Design Guides for Scotland.
1056 123. NAGAPAN, S., RAHMAN, I. A., ASMI, A., MEMON, A. H. & ZIN, R. M. 2012. Identifying
1057 causes of construction waste–case of Central Region of Peninsula Malaysia. International
1058 Journal of Integrated Engineering, 4.
1059 124. NASIRI, M. M., HEIDARI, R., YAZDANPARAST, R. & AKBARIAN, N. Robust Possibilistic
1060 Programming Approach for the Design of Tehran Municipal Solid Waste Management
1061 System. 13th International Conference on Industrial Engineering (IIEC 2017), Mazandaran,
1062 Iran, 2017.
1063 125. NETO, R. O., GASTINEAU, P., CAZACLIU, B. G., LE GUEN, L., PARANHOS, R. S. &
1064 PETTER, C. O. 2017. An economic analysis of the processing technologies in CDW recycling
1065 platforms. Waste management, 60, 277-289.
1066 126. NEYESTANI, B. & JUANZON, J. B. P. 2016. Developing an appropriate performance
1067 measurement framework for Total Quality Management (TQM) in Construction and Other
1068 Industries. IRA-International Journal of Technology & Engineering (ISSN 2455-4480), 5, 32.
1069 127. NIKMEHR, B., HOSSEINI, M. R., RAMEEZDEEN, R., CHILESHE, N., GHODDOUSI, P. &
1070 ARASHPOUR, M. 2017. An integrated model for factors affecting construction and
1071 demolition waste management in Iran. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
1072 Management.
1073 128. NOWOSIELSKI, R., KANIA, A. & SPILKA, M. 2010. Recycling as an important element
1074 of engineering design. Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering,
1075 42, 188-195.
1076 129. OFORI, G. 2007. Construction in developing countries. Construction management
1077 and economics, 25, 1-6.

28
1078 130. OKO JOHN, A. & EMMANUEL ITODO, D. 2013. Professionals’ views of material
1079 wastage on construction sites and cost overruns. Organization, technology & management
1080 in construction: an international journal, 5, 747-757.
1081 131. OSMANI, M., GLASS, J. & PRICE, A. D. 2008. Architects’ perspectives on construction
1082 waste reduction by design. Waste management, 28, 1147-1158.
1083 132. OSMANI, M. & VILLORIA-SÁEZ, P. Current and emerging construction waste
1084 management status, trends and approaches. Waste, 2019. Elsevier, 365-380.
1085 133. OYEDELE, L. O., REGAN, M., VON MEDING, J., AHMED, A., EBOHON, O. J. &
1086 ELNOKALY, A. 2013. Reducing waste to landfill in the UK: identifying impediments and critical
1087 solutions. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development.
1088 134. OYENUGA, A. 2016. Economic and environmental impact assessment of construction
1089 and demolition waste recycling and reuse using LCA and MCDA management tools. London
1090 South Bank University.
1091 135. PARK, J. & TUCKER, R. 2017. Overcoming barriers to the reuse of construction waste
1092 material in Australia: a review of the literature. International Journal of Construction
1093 Management, 17, 228-237.
1094 136. PAZ, D. H. F. D., LAFAYETTE, K. P. V. & SOBRAL, M. D. C. 2018. GIS-based planning
1095 system for managing the flow of construction and demolition waste in Brazil. Waste
1096 Management & Research, 36, 541-549.
1097 137. PEARCE, D. W. & TURNER, R. K. 1990. Economics of natural resources and the
1098 environment, JHU Press.
1099 138. PICKIN, J., RANDELL, P., TRINH, J., GRANT, B. J. D. O. T. E. & ENERGY, M., VICTORIA,
1100 AUSTRALIA 2018. National waste report 2018.
1101 139. POMPONI, F. & MONCASTER, A. 2017. Circular economy for the built environment: A
1102 research framework. Journal of cleaner production, 143, 710-718.
1103 140. POON, C.-S. & CHAN, D. 2007. The use of recycled aggregate in concrete in Hong
1104 Kong. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 50, 293-305.
1105 141. POON, C. 2007. Reducing construction waste. Waste Management, 1715-1716.
1106 142. POON, C., YU, A. T., WONG, A. & YIP, R. 2013. Quantifying the impact of construction
1107 waste charging scheme on construction waste management in Hong Kong. Journal of
1108 construction engineering and management, 139, 466-479.
1109 143. POON, C. S., YU, A. T. W., WONG, S. W. & CHEUNG, E. 2004. Management of
1110 construction waste in public housing projects in Hong Kong. Construction Management &
1111 Economics, 22, 675-689.
1112 144. PRAIRIE VILLAGE, K. 1998. Characterization of building-related construction and
1113 demolition debris in the United States. The US Environmental Protection Agency Municipal
1114 and Industrial Solid Waste Division Office of Solid Waste.
1115 145. PREMALATHA, M., TAUSEEF, S., ABBASI, T. & ABBASI, S. 2013. The promise and the
1116 performance of the world's first two zero carbon eco-cities. Renewable and Sustainable
1117 Energy Reviews, 25, 660-669.
1118 146. QIN, X. 2012. Analytic Research on Construction Waste Classification and the
1119 Related Factors on Environmental Pollution.
1120 147. RAM, J., AFRIDI, N. K. & KHAN, K. A. 2019. Adoption of Big Data analytics in
1121 construction: development of a conceptual model. Built Environment Project and Asset
1122 Management.
1123 148. RAMLEE, N., TAMMY, N., RAJA MOHD NOOR, R., AINUN MUSIR, A., ABDUL KARIM,
1124 N., CHAN, H. & MOHD NASIR, S. Critical success factors for construction project. AIP
1125 Conference Proceedings, 2016. AIP Publishing LLC, 030011.
1126 149. REZA, B., SADIQ, R. & HEWAGE, K. 2011. Sustainability assessment of flooring
1127 systems in the city of Tehran: An AHP-based life cycle analysis. Construction and Building
1128 Materials, 25, 2053-2066.

29
1129 150. SAATY, T. L. 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International
1130 journal of services sciences, 1, 83-98.
1131 151. SAEZ, P. V., DEL RÍO MERINO, M., GONZÁLEZ, A. S.-A. & PORRAS-AMORES, C. 2013.
1132 Best practice measures assessment for construction and demolition waste management in
1133 building constructions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 75, 52-62.
1134 152. SAFA, M., SHAHI, A., HAAS, C. T. & HIPEL, K. W. 2014. Supplier selection process in an
1135 integrated construction materials management model. Automation in Construction, 48, 64-
1136 73.
1137 153. SAGHAFI, M. D. & TESHNIZI, Z. A. H. 2011. Building deconstruction and material
1138 recovery in Iran: an analysis of major determinants. Procedia Engineering, 21, 853-863.
1139 154. SEROR, N., HARELI, S. & PORTNOV, B. A. 2014. Evaluating the effect of vehicle
1140 impoundment policy on illegal construction and demolition waste dumping: Israel as a case
1141 study. Waste management, 34, 1436-1445.
1142 155. SHEN, L. & TAM, V. W. 2002. Implementation of environmental management in the
1143 Hong Kong construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 535-543.
1144 156. SHEN, L., TAM, V. W., TAM, C. & DREW, D. 2004. Mapping approach for examining
1145 waste management on construction sites. Journal of construction engineering and
1146 management, 130, 472-481.
1147 157. SHEN, L. Y., LI HAO, J., TAM, V. W. Y. & YAO, H. 2007. A checklist for assessing
1148 sustainability performance of construction projects. Journal of civil engineering and
1149 management, 13, 273-281.
1150 158. SILVA, R., DE BRITO, J. & DHIR, R. 2017. Availability and processing of recycled
1151 aggregates within the construction and demolition supply chain: A review. Journal of Cleaner
1152 Production, 143, 598-614.
1153 159. SKOYLES, E. R. & SKOYLES, J. R. 1987. Waste prevention on site, Mitchell London.
1154 160. SOLÍS-GUZMÁN, J., MARRERO, M., MONTES-DELGADO, M. V. & RAMÍREZ-DE-
1155 ARELLANO, A. 2009. A Spanish model for quantification and management of construction
1156 waste. Waste Management, 29, 2542-2548.
1157 161. SROUR, I. M., CHEHAB, G. R., EL-FADEL, M. & TAMRAZ, S. 2013. Pilot-based
1158 assessment of the economics of recycling construction demolition waste. Waste
1159 management & research, 31, 1170-1179.
1160 162. SU, B., HESHMATI, A., GENG, Y. & YU, X. 2013. A review of the circular economy in
1161 China: moving from rhetoric to implementation. Journal of cleaner production, 42, 215-227.
1162 163. SU, X., RAHMAN ANDOH, A., CAI, H., PAN, J., KANDIL, A. & SAID, H. M. 2012. GIS-
1163 based dynamic construction site material layout evaluation for building renovation projects.
1164 Automation in construction, 27, 40-49.
1165 164. SUN, C., JIANG, F. & JIANG, S. 2013. Research on RFID Applications in Construction
1166 Industry. JNW, 8, 1221-1228.
1167 165. TAM, V. W.-Y. & LU, W. 2016. Construction waste management profiles, practices,
1168 and performance: a cross-jurisdictional analysis in four countries. Sustainability, 8, 190.
1169 166. TAM, V. W. 2008. On the effectiveness in implementing a waste-management-plan
1170 method in construction. Waste management, 28, 1072-1080.
1171 167. TAM, V. W. 2011a. Cost effectiveness of using low cost housing technologies in
1172 construction. Procedia Engineering, 14, 156-160.
1173 168. TAM, V. W. 2011b. Rate of reusable and recyclable waste in construction. The open
1174 waste management journal, 4.
1175 169. TAM, V. W., TAM, C. M., ZENG, S. & NG, W. C. 2007. Towards adoption of
1176 prefabrication in construction. Building and environment, 42, 3642-3654.
1177 170. TCHOBANOGLOUS, G., ELIASSEN, R. & THEISEN, H. 1977. Solid wastes; engineering
1178 principles and management issues, McGraw-Hill.

30
1179 171. TEO, M. & LOOSEMORE, M. 2001. A theory of waste behaviour in the construction
1180 industry. Construction Management and Economics, 19, 741-751.
1181 172. TEO, M. M., LOOSEMORE, M., MASOSSZEKY, M. & KARIM, K. Operatives attitudes
1182 towards waste on a construction project. Annual Conference–ARCOM, 2000. 509-517.
1183 173. THE WORLD BANK. 2018a. GDP [Online]. Available:
1184 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD [Accessed].
1185 174. THE WORLD BANK. 2018b. Land Area [Online]. Available:
1186 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.TOTL.K2 [Accessed].
1187 175. THE WORLD BANK. 2018c. population [Online]. Available:
1188 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL [Accessed].
1189 176. THOMAS, R., MAROSSZEKY, M., KARIM, K., DAVIS, S. & MCGEORGE, D. The
1190 importance of project culture in achieving quality outcomes in construction. Proceedings
1191 IGLC, 2002. 1-13.
1192 177. TILAYE, M. & VAN DIJK, M. P. 2014. Private sector participation in solid waste
1193 collection in Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) by involving micro-enterprises. Waste management &
1194 research, 32, 79-87.
1195 178. UDAWATTA, N., ZUO, J., CHIVERALLS, K., YUAN, H., GEORGE, Z. & ELMUALIM, A.
1196 2018. Major factors impeding the implementation of waste management in Australian
1197 construction projects. Journal of Green Building, 13, 101-121.
1198 179. UDAWATTA, N., ZUO, J., CHIVERALLS, K. & ZILLANTE, G. 2015a. Attitudinal and
1199 behavioural approaches to improving waste management on construction projects in
1200 Australia: benefits and limitations. International journal of construction management, 15,
1201 137-147.
1202 180. UDAWATTA, N., ZUO, J., CHIVERALLS, K. & ZILLANTE, G. 2015b. Improving waste
1203 management in construction projects: An Australian study. Resources, Conservation and
1204 Recycling, 101, 73-83.
1205 181. ULUBEYLI, S., KAZAZ, A. & ARSLAN, V. 2017. Construction and demolition waste
1206 recycling plants revisited: management issues. Procedia Engineering, 172, 1190-1197.
1207 182. VITALE, P., ARENA, N., DI GREGORIO, F. & ARENA, U. 2017. Life cycle assessment of
1208 the end-of-life phase of a residential building. Waste management, 60, 311-321.
1209 183. WALKER, D. 2008. Sustainability: Environmental management, transparency and
1210 competitive advantage. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, 7, 119-130.
1211 184. WANG, J., LI, Z. & TAM, V. W. 2014. Critical factors in effective construction waste
1212 minimization at the design stage: a Shenzhen case study, China. Resources, Conservation and
1213 Recycling, 82, 1-7.
1214 185. WANG, J., WU, H., TAM, V. W. & ZUO, J. 2019. Considering life-cycle environmental
1215 impacts and society's willingness for optimizing construction and demolition waste
1216 management fee: An empirical study of China. Journal of cleaner production, 206, 1004-
1217 1014.
1218 186. WANG, J., YUAN, H., KANG, X. & LU, W. 2010. Critical success factors for on-site
1219 sorting of construction waste: a China study. Resources, conservation and recycling, 54, 931-
1220 936.
1221 187. WANG, J. Y., KANG, X. P. & TAM, V. W. Y. 2008. An investigation of construction
1222 wastes: an empirical study in Shenzhen. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology.
1223 188. WANG, Q. & WALTMAN, L. 2016. Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal
1224 classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 347-364.
1225 189. WON, J. & CHENG, J. C. 2017. Identifying potential opportunities of building
1226 information modeling for construction and demolition waste management and
1227 minimization. Automation in Construction, 79, 3-18.

31
1228 190. WON, J., CHENG, J. C. & LEE, G. 2016. Quantification of construction waste
1229 prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South Korea. Waste
1230 Management, 49, 170-180.
1231 191. WONG, J. K. W. & ZHOU, J. 2015. Enhancing environmental sustainability over
1232 building life cycles through green BIM: A review. Automation in Construction, 57, 156-165.
1233 192. WU, H., DUAN, H., WANG, J., WANG, T. & WANG, X. 2015. Quantification of carbon
1234 emission of construction waste by using streamlined LCA: a case study of Shenzhen, China.
1235 Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 17, 637-645.
1236 193. WU, H., DUAN, H., ZHENG, L., WANG, J., NIU, Y. & ZHANG, G. 2016. Demolition
1237 waste generation and recycling potentials in a rapidly developing flagship megacity of South
1238 China: Prospective scenarios and implications. Construction and Building Materials, 113,
1239 1007-1016.
1240 194. WU, H., ZUO, J., YUAN, H., ZILLANTE, G. & WANG, J. 2019a. A review of performance
1241 assessment methods for construction and demolition waste management. Resources,
1242 Conservation and Recycling, 150, 104407.
1243 195. WU, H., ZUO, J., ZILLANTE, G., WANG, J. & YUAN, H. 2019b. Construction and
1244 demolition waste research: a bibliometric analysis. Architectural Science Review, 62, 354-
1245 365.
1246 196. WU, H., ZUO, J., ZILLANTE, G., WANG, J. & YUAN, H. 2019c. Status quo and future
1247 directions of construction and demolition waste research: A critical review. Journal of
1248 Cleaner Production, 240, 118163.
1249 197. WU, Z., ANN, T., SHEN, L. & LIU, G. 2014. Quantifying construction and demolition
1250 waste: An analytical review. Waste Management, 34, 1683-1692.
1251 198. XU, J., SHI, Y., XIE, Y. & ZHAO, S. 2019. A BIM-Based construction and demolition
1252 waste information management system for greenhouse gas quantification and reduction.
1253 Journal of Cleaner Production, 229, 308-324.
1254 199. YAHYA, K. & BOUSSABAINE, A. H. 2006. Eco-costing of construction waste.
1255 Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal.
1256 200. YAZDANBAKHSH, A. 2018. A bi-level environmental impact assessment framework
1257 for comparing construction and demolition waste management strategies. Waste
1258 Management, 77, 401-412.
1259 201. YEHEYIS, M., HEWAGE, K., ALAM, M. S., ESKICIOGLU, C. & SADIQ, R. 2013. An
1260 overview of construction and demolition waste management in Canada: a lifecycle analysis
1261 approach to sustainability. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 15, 81-91.
1262 202. YUAN, H. 2012. A model for evaluating the social performance of construction waste
1263 management. Waste management, 32, 1218-1228.
1264 203. YUAN, H. 2013a. Critical management measures contributing to construction waste
1265 management: Evidence from construction projects in China. Project Management Journal,
1266 44, 101-112.
1267 204. YUAN, H. 2013b. Key indicators for assessing the effectiveness of waste
1268 management in construction projects. Ecological Indicators, 24, 476-484.
1269 205. YUAN, H. 2017. Barriers and countermeasures for managing construction and
1270 demolition waste: A case of Shenzhen in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 157, 84-93.
1271 206. YUAN, H. & SHEN, L. 2011. Trend of the research on construction and demolition
1272 waste management. Waste management, 31, 670-679.
1273 207. YUAN, H., WU, H. & ZUO, J. 2018. Understanding factors influencing project
1274 managers’ behavioral intentions to reduce waste in construction projects. Journal of
1275 Management in Engineering, 34, 04018031.
1276 208. ZAMAN, A. U. 2015. A comprehensive review of the development of zero waste
1277 management: lessons learned and guidelines. Journal of Cleaner Production, 91, 12-25.

32
1278 209. ZAMAN, A. U. & LEHMANN, S. 2011. Challenges and opportunities in transforming a
1279 city into a “zero waste city”. Challenges, 2, 73-93.
1280 210. ZHANG, X., WU, Y. & SHEN, L. 2012. Application of low waste technologies for design
1281 and construction: a case study in Hong Kong. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 16,
1282 2973-2979.
1283

33
Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests: